JOINT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 15 Jan 2008

Dublin Bus Development: Discussion with NBRU and SIPTU.

Chairman

I am pleased to welcome the representatives of SIPTU and the National Bus and Rail Union, NBRU, to the joint committee. We are examining the potential of bus transport in the five cities to act as the most immediate mechanism for dealing with traffic congestion and improving public transport. Starting with Dublin, we are asking all interest groups to appear before the committee. We have already met representatives of Dublin Bus and held initial discussions with officials from the Department of Transport. We are inviting the four Dublin city managers and their advisers on transport, the four county managers from the counties around Dublin, the chief executive of the quality bus corridor network office, the director of the board on integrated ticketing and the Dublin Transportation Office to appear before us. I have also received a number of submissions and communications from members of the public. We could consider giving a selected group of bus users the opportunity to address the committee.

Although, like many others, I am wedded to my car, I have tried to practise what I preach since the beginning of these discussions by using the bus. It is a joy to use Dublin Bus, on which the unions should be congratulated. During the heat of the Dublin traffic rush before Christmas, I took the No. 92 to the train station and watched the way the driver operated. He was an ambassador for Dublin Bus. I watched him deal with somebody who could not speak English very well. It was a joy to behold how helpful that man was to that person. The unions and management of Dublin Bus are to be congratulated on the fact that in 13 years there was only one strike, with the exception of the recent debacle. That is due to responsible union leadership and good relationships with the management of Dublin Bus. In light of what happened in the past there are many positives and we want to talk in that context today.

I will open with some remarks, ask representatives of both unions to make a short statement and then allow committee members to speak, beginning with party spokespersons. This committee's priority is that bus transport will be rapidly and significantly expanded, particularly in the cities. In the next five years Dublin will see no improvement in the Luas or proposed metro because of the length of time taken to build those systems. This is an opportunity for Dublin Bus to provide an efficient, reliable and cost-effective transport system. We see two parts to that, namely, making it possible for buses to move and increasing numbers. We are asking the various authorities, particularly Dublin City Council and the Dublin Transportation Office, to give us a programme of enhancement of bus corridors, the development of park-and-ride and, particularly, a car-free city centre so that buses can move. That will be necessary when the big dig begins in 18 months, and we want it to start now.

A number of weeks ago Dublin Bus told us it proposes to introduce 350 extra buses in five years. This committee has agreed an objective with the Minister that we want to see 350 extra buses on the streets of Dublin in two years. That can happen only if those buses can move adequately. The 46A is an example of what we would all like to see. The Luas, which will carry 30 million passengers this year, shows people will use public transport if it is reliable and good quality. In our efforts with the Minister and the Department, working with the unions and Dublin Bus, we have identified a need to increase the number and frequencies of buses, particularly at off-peak times, to open new routes, particularly the orbital routes which are poor but have great potential, and to open park-and-ride facilities, especially on the main national routes into the city. At our last meeting with Dublin Bus one of our members raised the possibility of opening a park-and-ride facility in Lissenhall, just north of the airport, where the land is already reserved for a metro park-and-ride. We see the potential of opening that immediately and running a quality bus service through the tunnel and the new bus lane on the north quays into O'Connell Street. That is the kind of innovation we want to see quickly.

On the specifics of introducing extra buses and the participation of the private sector in the Dublin Bus market, there have been two initiatives in recent years. In 2000 there was discussion around the subcontracting of the private sector into the Dublin Bus market. That went nowhere and nothing came of it. In 2004, there was a discussion between Dublin Bus, the unions and the Department to work out a formula to increase by approximately 350 the 1,182 buses in the city which would involve the next 15% increase in bus numbers being provided by the private sector, which would operate in new routes, particularly in new orbital routes. The radial routes would continue to be operated by Dublin Bus. There was also a suggestion that extra buses, subject to negotiation, be provided by way of subcontracting to the private sector. Additional buses would be provided for the Dublin Bus network on existing radial routes. I understand the discussions stopped in mid-2005 and for some reason have not recommenced since. I put it to the delegation that this would be the basis for restarting them in order to increase bus numbers in the city. Involving the private sector could lead to the introduction of competition to bring about the change everybody wants to see.

It is clear to everybody that this is largely an untapped market. Some 148 million passengers were carried by Dublin Bus last year, which number could be increased to 250 million. There is now a wonderful opportunity to make Dublin a highly successful city in terms of public transport through increased bus use. Ironically, there is an opportunity to do this quickly because of the "big dig" that will bring everything in the city centre to a halt if we do not remove traffic from it and provide an alternative within the next 18 months. In such a positive way I put it to the delegates that there is this opportunity. Is the company in a position to rise to the occasion to bring traffic congestion to an end?

Mr. Michael Halpenny

I speak on behalf of SIPTU which has approximately 1,400 members across the grades in Dublin Bus. Clearly, our primary concern is the security and retention of decent terms and conditions for our members, with an optimum service for the communities we serve and, in many cases, come from, within the framework of public policy and public ownership and control. That is the basis on which we stand.

To respond to the Chairman's question on whether we can rise to the occasion, we have been doing this for the past 15 years. Although I was not directly involved in all of them, I have been advised that there have been ten or 11 change programmes, whether in the form of productivity ideas or viability plans. They have resulted in a leaner company in terms of the numbers employed, although I would not necessarily accept that this is a good measure. There is no question about the commitment of the workforce or the unions to the change process. We operate a service and it is pleasant to hear people acknowledging this, as it is as much our company as that of anybody else.

The company is acknowledged to be efficient and delivering good value. I stand over the 2006 Booz Allen Hamilton report and the recent expenditure review of the CIE group subvention, done on behalf of the Department of Transport. Both reports acknowledge the efficiency and value for money achieved in Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. The group has the smallest public subsidy in the European Union according to a recent benchmark study carried out by Jane’s Urban Transport System, as Dublin Bus may have disclosed to the committee. This holds whether measured by the number of kilometres travelled or passengers carried. All members, particularly those based in Dublin, will acknowledge that it is a delivery system for socio-economic objectives in terms of the nexus of work and home. Judging from the social content in the United Kingdom, which I suspect is not different from that here, there is greater use of bus transport by older people, younger people in accessing education and training, and women. It is also an instrument of social cohesion, particularly for disadvantaged areas and families that do not have access to cars. This is acknowledged in the House of Commons study as reported to the House of Commons select committee in 2002. I do not see our conurbations being very different. In fact, the effect may be even more accentuated.

Deputy Dooley has a particular take on connectivity in a wider sense. In the greater Dublin area this must be considered. We tend to think of bus companies as transport companies but they also have an economic and social remit. This brings us back to the emphasis we place on the idea that the development of cohesion and integration is not made for academic reasons. It is more than a bus journey, more than a fare box and more than revenue. Other aspects must be considered and Irish legislators must examine them. I am reliant on Dublin Bus figures which suggest 95% of bus passengers in the Dublin greater area are carried by Dublin Bus and 70% of public transport users, including fixed rail and road traffic services, are carried by Dublin Bus. On the face of it, the system appears to work in terms of efficiency and value for money.

It is not without the need for improvement but this is hampered by congestion, including the opportunity cost of congestion in terms of service and operating costs to the company. We are conscious of operational issues which, if addressed, do not necessarily need to be addressed by competition per se. The case has not been made that competition, of itself, delivers improved service, fare reduction or reduction in the public subsidy. The evidence from the United Kingdom suggests the opposite, that fares increase while there is a decrease in the service to the public. Far from a reduction in the public subsidy, there has been an overall increase, particularly in the London area. It is anticipated that it will increase again in 2008 and 2009. This is how we see the world in broad measure. We can develop this in discussion with the committee.

Mr. Bill McCamley

On a point of information on the question asked of trade unions, whether the agreement on subcontracting of 2000 had led to progress, the tender process began and there were quite a few bidders. However, there was uncertainty because the question of the future of Dublin Bus was raised. For this reason the issue faded into the background. The Dublin Bus business plan for this year will reactivate this element. The measure will probably be implemented this year. We have a pragmatic attitude towards subcontracting and our school bus network has been subcontracted since 1998. We will take a pragmatic attitude towards whatever arises during the transport talks.

Mr. Michael Faherty

Before I address the issue raised by the Chairman I will make a number of opening remarks. We are not familiar with the working proceedings of this distinguished committee. However, we thank the Chairman and the committee for the invitation to attend this meeting to express our views on the plans of Dublin Bus to extend its fleet. While our knowledge of the company's plans is somewhat limited we are happy to comment on them.

This union represents 2,000 staff in Dublin Bus all of whom welcome the committee's main priority with regard to the expansion of city bus services throughout the country, particularly in Dublin. However, our members have become extremely frustrated with the snail-like progress in delivering the quality of service our customers quite rightly demand. This frustration has arisen from years of criticism of the staff and Dublin Bus while the real culprits responsible for the inadequacies in the system are in the shadows.

The Department of Transport has wasted the past seven or eight years consulting and debating the merits of privatisation, de-regulation, franchising and sub-contracting. We have yet to hear any compelling or justifiable reason for wanting to fix something we do not believe is broken. At all times, public transport must have the customer as its first priority and not directors, shareholders or those get-rich-quick merchants who abandoned the industry after being awarded licences by the Department of Transport for little or nothing. When it suits them they will sell to the multinationals and in some cases become multimillionaires on the back of a State asset.

Despite all of the complaints, Dublin Bus receives a subvention only equalling approximately 28% of its operating costs which, as Mr. Michael Halpenny stated, is one of the lowest in Europe and this is not disputed. Independent consultants consistently stated the taxpayer receives value for money with regard to Dublin Bus. Subvention per customer cost for Dublin Bus is lower than in London, a franchised model constantly highlighted as one which should apply in Dublin.

It is our considered opinion that congestion and a shortage of buses are the main contributors in the failure to meet customer expectation with regard to the frequency and, more importantly, reliability of the current level of service. We are entitled to ask why Dublin Bus management has not been more vociferous in demanding that all relevant agencies deliver the infrastructure to enable the company to deliver a quality of service to our customers. Such a service would encourage car owners to switch to public transport.

Transferring from one form of public transport to another as in the case of Dublin Bus customers to Luas illustrates the dissatisfaction of the travelling public with regard to the inability of buses to move in a congested capital city. A statistic worth mentioning is the cost associated with congestion, which absorbs approximately two thirds of the total subvention paid to Dublin Bus. The lack of progress regarding bus priority measures such as quality bus corridors and park and ride facilities is a poor reflection on those agencies charged with responsibility for providing such facilities. This union wants the committee to demand that the relevant and responsible agencies tackle, and if possible eliminate, the obvious pinch points that are preventing the majority of existing quality bus corridors from being 100% effective. We also ask that the committee compel the relevant authorities to provide park and ride facilities on the outskirts of Dublin, particularly on all the major arteries into the city. Most importantly, this committee must ensure that the planned expansion of the Dublin Bus fleet by at least 350 buses, which we believe is an under estimation of need, be delivered within two years as opposed to the five years referred to by Dublin Bus.

The Chairman made some points earlier regarding opening up the market. He referred to the agreement in 2000 but Mr. McCamley has explained why that did not progress further and there is no need for me to elaborate on that. The more recent discussions were discontinued in the last week of July 2005. That discontinuation had nothing to do with us. We expected those talks to resume the following September. That was the understanding we had with those engaged in the discussions on the opening up of the market. However, there has been no further progress and no meetings with us since then.

My union is not interested in a mixed scenario whereby on the one hand Dublin Bus would sub-contract out a number of services while on the other hand, the private sector would provide another group of buses. Our objections are based on the network itself. We need network planning, with somebody in charge of the overall network who knows what is required. On that basis, we believe that if the market is to be opened up, it should be under the control of one organisation. In the absence of an alternative, we cannot see that any organisation could perform the task any better than Dublin Bus. It should retain total control of the network and planning, particularly in the short term.

The Chairman referred to the estimate that we will have 250 million customers over the next ten years. However, additional capacity is currently being provided by DART and there are plans afoot to increase that further. Luas will be expanded in the future and will also provide additional capacity. There are also plans, of which we know very little, to provide a metro link, serving areas such as Ballymun, Swords, the airport and so forth. Irish Rail also has plans to upgrade its outer suburban rail services. When all of these other modes of transport are taken into consideration, while bearing in mind the increase in the number of people living in the greater Dublin area, I can see Dublin Bus being squeezed over time. It is in the interest of customers to have all of the other modes of transport upgraded. That is what everyone needs, particularly as most of us use public transport. However, we do not want to see a situation whereby Dublin Bus is squeezed by the alternatives and its existing services are handed over to the private sector. On that basis, there would not be much of Bus Átha Cliath left in ten years' time. It should be taken into consideration that the DART, Luas, metro, outer suburban rail and every other mode of transport looks for the same market. I ask the committee to keep that in mind.

Chairman

I thank the representatives for their submissions and welcome the positive response from both unions, particularly the pragmatic approach indicated by SIPTU. The three objectives outlined by Mr. Faherty on behalf of NBRU are exactly the same as our objectives.

On the issues raised by Mr. Faherty, the specific agreement of 2004 does not necessarily mean there should be no other form of agreement but it is the best way to make an immediate impact on new routes along the orbital sector in Dublin. Some form of regulator, which I hope will arise from the Dublin transport authority legislation, will be an essential part of this matter because somebody is needed to look at the overall situation and review existing routes. Certain routes have become inefficient or are not performing. The challenge set out by Mr. Faherty in regard to Luas and the proposed metro must also be investigated. However, the bottom line for this committee is that the percentage of people travelling on public transport in Dublin, particularly on buses, can be significantly increased in the next five years, during which time Dublin Bus will have no competition other than an overcrowded Luas. The latter is a pointer for how good Dublin Bus can become.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

I thank the Chairman and warmly welcome our SIPTU and NBRU colleagues. I understand the Transport Salaried Staffs Association is also anxious to address the committee at some stage because its members share a deep interest in public transport issues.

Before asking questions on the interesting points raised by Mr. Faherty and Mr. Halpenny, I wish to describe the Labour Party's position on the matter. In the recent general election, my predecessor as party spokesperson on transport set out a strong policy for public transport. We wanted a modal shift away from private transport to buses and trains. The issue of price, which we believed was important, might be considered in the representatives' replies. Among our policies was a uniform €1 fare across the Dublin Bus area, and a 50c fare for children. I welcome the attendance at today's meeting of Dáil na nÓg members because they represent some of the major users of buses. We believe a dynamic fare policy across the network is important.

Subsidies in European cities such as Luxembourg, Brussels, Milan, Athens, Budapest, Paris, Stockholm, Helsinki, Dusseldorf, Barcelona, Lisbon, Copenhagen, Warsaw, London and Manchester range from 78% of the total cost down to 28% in Manchester. Situated below them all is the city of Dublin. Across Europe, this Government has by far the lowest interest in promoting public transport and that has been the reality for the past 11 years.

The Labour Party was bitterly opposed to the privatisation of public transport. Again, I ask our trade union colleagues to comment on the experience of the United Kingdom in the 1980s. It was an unmitigated disaster in which the numbers of bus users outside the London area collapsed and the numbers within London significantly declined. It was also a total disaster for rail transport. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher would be interested in the fact that the Chairman is returning to the bus after all these years because she said anybody over 26 years who used a bus must consider himself or herself a failure, such was her contempt for mass public transport. My party believes the vicious dismemberment of public transport in the 1980s and early 1990s was a disaster for the British people. Great cities such as Brussels, Dusseldorf, Oslo and Zurich have city bus companies which run public transport networks which serve those cities well.

The last 11 years have been a disaster for the development of public transport. The Chairman called for extra buses; ten years ago Dublin Bus asked for 420 or 500 buses. The second last time the Labour Party and Fine Gael were in government together, 20 years ago, we established a Dublin transport authority but the Fianna Fáil Government led by Mr. Charles Haughey immediately dismantled it. I would like the speakers' comments on the Dublin Transport Authority Bill, what it will be like, what it will ask for and how it will be paid for. The lack of investment has been grotesque. My constituency of Dublin North-East is lucky enough to have the DART. However, for 20 years after the service was provided we did not get a single new DART coach and passengers were, and still are, gasping for air. As I was coming in and out of the city in rush hour during Christmas week conditions were almost like those in Tokyo, with workers trying to squeeze passengers into coaches.

To what extent have the unions been consulted on the Dublin transport authority Bill? What do they think will be contained in it? What do they expect on licensing and how do they think the authority will operate? Have they been given any indication on this issue? Subcontracting issues are different. How do the unions envisage this will play out? Do they have concerns about the cost of regulation? Our NBRU colleague, Mr. Faherty, mentioned that the current runners of the network were running it well and warned against fixing something that was not broken.

In the United Kingdom we have recently seen a return to city governments, particularly that in London under its Mayor, Mr. Ken Livingstone, taking back the public transport remit after the disasters of the 1980s and 1990s. Do the unions have any comments on this? Mr. Halpenny of SIPTU mentioned wages and conditions. How would the unions see wages and conditions under the Dublin transport authority? Do they have many members in the private companies in Dublin or across the country? The speakers mentioned the action plan of a couple of years ago and missed opportunities, on which perhaps they might like to expand.

I met some NBRU workers and shop stewards last week and it was interesting looking at the operations of Bus Éireann. The point I picked up from drivers was that they believed Bus Éireann could be a more dynamic company. They had asked it to open routes, for example, from Tullow, County Carlow, to Dublin, because they felt it was a good business idea. In the Leinster region, north Munster and parts of Connacht, drivers felt Bus Éireann could be more dynamic. How do the trade unions view this? We have been discussing the Dublin Transport Authority but how is the rest of the nation affected by the legislation? One result of the UK experience was that some entrepreneurs made massive profits in the years following deregulation and privatisation. As a result, money was diverted from transport. A private bus company was established in my constituency to provide a service on the route from Kilbarrack to the airport, in direct competition with Dublin Bus, but it was eventually taken over and disappeared. What commitment will people outside the public sector have to Dublin Bus?

We are bitterly opposed to cherry-picking. It was heroic of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann to operate certain bus services such as the one to Finglas at 8.10 p.m., on which it carried only one or two passengers, or the services to Bohernabreena at 2.30 p.m. or 4.30 p.m. My party and its supporters are concerned about such issues, although we applaud the idea of greatly expanding the network and providing commuters with a better service.

Chairman

We will take two speakers and then allow the delegates to respond.

Deputy John Curran

I thank the representatives for their attendance and presentation. I will not go over all the points made but a number of weeks ago the management of Dublin Bus came before the joint committee to make a presentation on its future plans. I live in Clondalkin and use the bus, when possible, perhaps a couple of times a week. I drive the rest of the time. Therefore, I have a good understanding of the situation, living in an area in which there has been heavy congestion as a result of the development of other infrastructure.

Mr. Faherty said he looked forward to other projects being completed within a five to ten year period such as Luas, the upgrading of the DART, the metro north, metro west and Kildare route projects. Where will Dublin Bus fit in? While I understand the concerns expressed, those modes of public transport are fixed-line and do not offer the flexibility offered by Dublin Bus. A radical review of how it operates, in terms of route patterns, needs to be undertaken. When Luas started running from Tallaght to the city centre, passengers who had the option of availing of services on a parallel bus route invariably flocked to Luas. I do not know what the figures are but they do not matter. Dublin Bus had spare capacity as a result.

I live within half a mile of the Luas stop at the Red Cow and virtually nobody from my area uses Luas. I discussed with Dublin Bus the possibility of providing a feeder bus service but, without mentioning names, the response was why would Dublin Bus bring its passengers to Luas. Nevertheless, it is inevitable, arising from other infrastructural projects, that integration is the way forward. The future role of Dublin Bus will be part of the integration mix.

I agree with the Chairman that the plans presented by Dublin Bus a couple of weeks ago are too slow. There is an opportunity for Dublin Bus to meet demand during the construction phase of the other projects we have discussed and to provide integrated services. All the other services I mentioned are fixed-line. There will be no metro or other such scheme in Bawnogue in Clondalkin, where I live. Therefore, there will always be a role for Dublin Bus. It has introduced quality transport services in my area such as the No. 151 service, to which the public has taken. It has done so as strongly as it has taken to Luas in Tallaght. Competition exists there and there are great opportunities for Dublin Bus. I was critical of the management because plans stretched over an extended period; the Dublin Bus plan was to be completed at the same time as other major pieces of infrastructure.

Will Dublin Bus have the opportunity to subcontract services in the short term or is this something that will take years of discussion? The Chairman mentioned the big dig in Dublin and the radical changes that will ensue. I walk through Dublin city occasionally and see a significant amount of buses parked around town; we should see that they are put to use. Are there practical impediments to this? Why are buses parked in the city not moved to the suburbs and less congested areas? We all have a role to play in traffic management in greater Dublin. There has been much discussion on connecting the Luas lines from St. Stephen's Green to Connolly Station but what is preventing Dublin Bus from starting a frequent connecting service?

It may not be the business of union representatives to formulate such policies but, speaking as one who uses these facilities, I see similarities with when Luas started in my area. People in Tallaght did not get on the bus but the bus did not come to Clondalkin to take people to the Red Cow roundabout. People in my area cannot access the Luas and are furious as they spent years going through living hell because the Naas Road was blocked. From a union perspective, is there a willingness to embrace the types of changes needed without protracted negotiations or are there major stumbling blocks that will make progress impossible?

Mr. Michael Halpenny

I will try as best as I can to address the questions raised but will tend to give general answers, with my colleagues providing more specific replies.

Deputy Broughan raised questions regarding the Dublin transport authority and wondered whether there had been consultation. There was passing consultation through the Irish Congress of Trade Unions some time ago but there has been no in-depth consultation on the overall shape of things, other than on the area open to the public. We are wary of creating an unwieldy regulatory model that would hoover up a lot of money; the London model can hardly be described as a light touch, financially or otherwise, and this is also the case in Copenhagen. There are enough examples to show that when one creates an independent regulatory model it may not necessarily work out as one might have thought. The cost of regulation is a real issue and, as my colleague in the NBRU pointed out, there is an existing network control mechanism that works.

Deputy Broughan also raised the issue of licensing and we have more experience of this outside Dublin than inside Dublin. The going rate for a licence is around €7.50; it is ridiculously low and is around the same as a packet of cigarettes. Anecdotal evidence suggests people buy them, hold on to them for a certain period and then sell them to the most opportune bidder, if not the highest bidder, for a substantial amount with no value added to what is a public asset. Licensing is an issue that concerns us and there is anecdotal evidence, even within Dublin, that people are holding on to licences, though I do not have precise figures relating to this.

Chairman

Does this include Dublin Bus?

Mr. Michael Halpenny

I am not arguing about that as Dublin Bus does not have to apply for a licence; it gets an authorisation that involves an entirely different legal mechanism. Neither Dublin Bus nor Bus Éireann are obliged to go through the licensing process so it would be inappropriate to lay these charges against them. This is not a matter for me to discuss but is something the Department of Transport can address.

We are reasonably familiar, as most members of the committee are, with the UK experience. It has been the subject of two House of Commons inquiries, the most extensive being the one that took place in 2002, which was a close examination of the history and experience of deregulation from 1986. On the effects on workers, in the first six years of deregulation there was a fall in the numbers employed, while in the 14 years between 1986 and 2000 there were disimprovements in wages and conditions in both actual and relative terms. This is all a matter of public record through the House of Commons select committee. Obviously, there was an increase in staff turnover as the job became less attractive and that, in turn, affected services and operation. Correspondingly, as Deputy Broughan correctly stated, there were increases in profit margins of between 16% and 25%, the latter rate in the West Midlands. This is a phenomenal increase in profitability. In his evidence to the House of Commons the then managing director of surface transport for London stated that this had been done on the backs of the workers who had to accept lower pay and conditions. This referred to the initial period in the London area where there was less call for public subsidy. From the workers' point of view, the experience of the deregulation experiment in London and throughout the United Kingdom has not been a happy one. We are very much aware of this.

We have found in exchanges and background discussions with the Department in recent years that there is major concern about deregulation in the trade union movement. The unions maintain that if there is to be any dispensation, arrangements must be made to ensure there will be no race to the bottom, that the assurances given by the Taoiseach in 2004 — albeit in a slightly different context — must be honoured and that if there is to be competition, it must be based on efficiency, not on a reduction in labour costs.

Chairman

That still stands.

Mr. Michael Halpenny

It is encouraging to hear the Chairman say it does.

Although we do not have a remit to deal with the question of Bus Éireann at this meeting, I also have responsibility for this area. Therefore, I will make an observation. As well as having a different geographical area of operation, Bus Éireann also operates in a different way from Dublin Bus. It is much more open to the vagaries of competition and its workers have wide experience of the way in which the current licensing operation runs against the delivery of service, as they argue. I am not saying it has not been successful on some routes and one might argue that the service has improved on certain main routes, but in the overall integrated system it argues that it has affected service delivery. Its employees are very conscious of this. They are also aware of the amount of head-running taking place on certain routes and the overall effect this is having on the company, the level of service provided for the public and stability of employment within Bus Éireann.

The fundamental reason for this is the interpretation currently placed on the licensing system and the public interest as identified in the 1932 Road Transport Act. There was a time when "public interest" was interpreted in a wide sense which did actually reflect concern for the public, but that changed over time and with a different regime to a narrower definition in which the only consideration given to the public interest was with regard to specific routes. In this way, minor connections not on the main route from A to B could be discarded and people not on the main route did not enter into consideration.

Mr. Bill McCamley

A question was asked about Labour Party policy. In the first instance, one would not find anyone in SIPTU who would say cheap fares are not desirable. Having said that, we must ask ourselves the direct effect this would have on our public transport service. Surveys in Rome and Stockholm that we have seen indicate that cheap fares alone will not create more volumes. More volumes are created by reliability, higher frequency and the type of measures Dublin Bus management and any Deputy worth his or her salt have talked about, but the question is how to achieve that. The developments we and Dublin Bus management have talked about are important, namely, the quality bus corridors, public transport priority and speeding up those processes. Once the QBCs are in place, however, we must not sit on our laurels because public transport is a type of social activity which requires constant monitoring. Michael Faherty has already referred to pinch points in terms of development and we need a much more proactive attitude towards priorities such as those mentioned.

Traffic congestion, which Michael Faherty mentioned also, is a major problem. Traffic congestion is costing Dublin Bus €60 million and bearing in mind that our subvention is €80 million, we are now talking about €20 million. If we also take into consideration that unlike bus companies in the United Kingdom we have to pay our VAT, the figure is €15 million. With all that put into context, members will understand where the problems lie and how to address them.

We have a pragmatic attitude towards private operators but we must differentiate between what is a social network and a bus service. Anybody can run a bus from A to B and make money on it. That takes us back to the question of licences. Licences have been issued but approximately 50% of private operators are sitting on their licences, so to speak, and as a result Dublin Bus cannot develop that service. We have problems in the northern fringe. We have problems in Swords and Lucan where we cannot develop our bus services because some people are saying there is a problem. I am led to believe that we cannot use our high capacity VT buses on the Lucan corridor to move large masses of people because a problem may arise with the private operators. If that is the case it is disgraceful but that is neither here nor there. My sympathy to a certain extent is with the Department of Transport because it is concerned about various legal challenges and so on if it is seen to be too kind to Dublin Bus, which it has not been in the past. If anything, the opposite is the case but I will leave it at that.

To answer the question about joining up the lines, the problem is that there is a licence available and it is not ours.

Chairman

Joining up which lines?

Mr. Bill McCamley

We are talking about the two Luas lines.

Deputy John Curran

Specifically by bus route.

Mr. Bill McCamley

Yes. A licence is ready but we do not have that. We cannot apply for that.

Chairman

No, that is not correct.

Mr. Bill McCamley

I have been led to believe that is the case. We can check it later.

Chairman

Specifically on that, if this interconnector will achieve such great success, why not put a high quality, high frequency reliable bus service between the two Luas lines?

Mr. Bill McCamley

That would be the best way to deal with it because in the city centre approximately 60 million people a year operate on those bus corridors. If that is disrupted for the length of time we are told it will be — I understand O'Connell Bridge and Westmoreland Street may take two years along with the other areas — we will have huge holes in the ground. I have no opposition to other forms of public transport, be it metro, Luas or whatever, but if we are going to do that we must have some sort of co-ordinated approach to ensure our buses remain working. We should concentrate our minds on that because there will be considerable disruption for a long period and as the Chairman pointed out earlier, it will be at least 2012 before the railways come on line in terms of their contribution towards public transport. The bus is king in the short and medium term because the nature of our city is low density. It will take time for a bus to go from A to B no matter where one is because we do not have a good land use policy which should also be tied into it.

Deputy Curran spoke about the Luas which is costing us €10 million. One could ask whether we are competitors or friends. Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and, presumably, Sinn Féin favour integration. However, the policies advocated are taking away from this. For instance, there is no common run-in with the Luas. If the Luas is extended to Lucan, Dublin Bus and Mortons will have a problem if there is no common run-in. These issues should be addressed.

Since 1979 I have advocated the establishment of a DTA. I wrote a position paper for a politician on the issue. Mr. Halpenny referred to the models which were not in our interests. The London model is predicated on managed monopolies. It is a huge bureaucracy. A couple of years ago it cost €24 million to run the bureaucracy in Copenhagen which keeps coming up. That is the size of the subsidy to Bus Éireann. We must ask ourselves if we wish to finance pen-pushers — I mean no disrespect to civil servants — or if we want buses. The DTA model we advocate is a very lean one, where network management would be strongly connected to the operators in order that one would be able to quickly make all the necessary changes needed in public transport services. In some places, including Copenhagen, it can take up to six months to a year to complete a simple extension of a route. The Deputy mentioned new developments in various parts of the city. The only way one can respond to the challenge presented by a sprawling city such as this is by making adaptations quickly. Therefore, the DTA one will put in place will have to be a very lean animal — a light touch regulatory movement. We had a problem with what was proposed and do not know if amendments have been made. The committee is probably in a better position to answer that question.

Mr. Michael Faherty

I wish to respond to the points made by Deputy Broughan. We always contend fares are a factor in public transport. Therefore, we would welcome cheaper fares and are never happy when they are increased. If they are not going to be increased, the subvention must be increased but during the years we have found it difficult to have it increased.

We keep coming back to the issue of congestion. If we free up the streets in order that buses can move, we will have increased productivity. As Deputy Broughan knows, the 16A route runs from Dublin Airport to Churchtown. On a given day the journey can take two and a half hours but on a Sunday morning it takes an hour and a quarter. If we enable buses to move freely on the streets, we will have increased productivity and everybody will benefit. There would not be a need for the same subvention and we could operate with lower fares.

On what happened in the United Kingdom, on which so much information was available and which was such a disaster outside the greater London area, I did not think anybody would need a lecture on the issue. It still seems to be forgotten that transport companies cannot hold on to staff in London. I read in a report that because of this between 15% and 20% of journeys had been cancelled in the summer period. There is a staff turnover rate of approximately 30% in a given year. How can one run an efficient transport company if one has a staff turnover rate of the order of 30% to 33% per year and must cancel services daily because one cannot hold on to staff? As we all know, Transport for London had to subsidise private companies, on top of the normal subvention, to make an additional payment to encourage drivers to stay in the job. That is how bad it is.

I refer to customers and carrying capacity. Congestion charges in London helped to increase the numbers of customers carried on buses. These customers were forced onto the underground, which is already full to capacity, or buses. People would say that they carry many more passengers than they did a number of years ago but there is a good reason for that, namely, congestion charges forced people out of their cars and onto buses. We know enough about the London model.

I concur fully with Mr. McCamley on the Dublin transport authority. The question was whether we were consulted. We were not consulted. We were asked when the report was published to comment on it, but we were not consulted at all on the matter.

There were areas that gave us real cause for concern. They seemed to be more interested in being able to appoint people to the boards of Bus Éireann, Bus Átha Cliath and Iarnród Éireann. Nominating people to those boards seemed to be a big concern of theirs. To have control of property owned by CIE was a big concern of theirs, but when it came down to the role that they should have in dealing with and regulating the market, there was little concrete information available to us and it was difficult to comment. It would appear that they wanted control of the network, but then they were not able to spell out exactly how they would do that and who would plant the network. There was a vast amount of work to be done on that, but we were not consulted. We opposed many of the provisions.

Without referring back to London too much, I must make the point that the statistics bandied about refer to how great it was in the initial stages, and of course they did carry more people. At that stage they had severe competition for the market with the result that dozens of small operators took an interest in it and got involved. However, it was like everything else. When the contracts came up for renewal year after year the number of operators applying reduced to such an extent that the service is now controlled by five main operators. There are a small number of operators on the periphery, but what one has is a private monopoly. One rarely ever sees--

Chairman

We have been to London and have seen what is there. We have not raised London as an option here. We have raised other options. Deputy Curran has put a number of points to which I have not yet heard any replies.

Mr. Michael Faherty

I cannot go off without making a comment about Bus Éireann. The position in the case of Bus Éireann has been disastrous, at least for the past seven or eight years, and it may be put down totally to the way the Department of Transport issues licences. We are not here to make a presentation about Bus Éireann, but it must be said that under the 1932 Act governing the regulation of licensing to operators, according to the Department the criteria is whether it is in the public interest. If it is in the public interest the licence must be given. Most people would agree that every licence is in somebody's interest. If there was a service every five minutes from Galway to Dublin, for instance, I am sure the customer would want it but such a service is not practical or feasible. There is an hourly service. Over the past number of years the Department has issued licences, such as for Dundalk to Dublin and Galway to Cork, which allow these people to operate sometimes as little as five minutes ahead of current Bus Éireann services. I am not suggesting that they should not be in the market but the situation is crazy. These services operate five minutes ahead of Bus Éireann. One will not see a licence issued to one of these people operating five or ten minutes after the Bus Éireann service.

Chairman

There is a most diabolical service on the orbital routes by Dublin Bus.

Mr. Michael Faherty

Do you mean Bus Éireann, Chairman?

Chairman

We are discussing Dublin Bus.

Mr. Michael Faherty

Somebody raised Bus Éireann with me.

Chairman

Let us stick to the business.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

In recent weeks a number of people, including those in the transport area, have said to me that they expect a mechanism in the Dublin transport authority Bill whereby quadrants of this city, for example, the Dublin North-East and Dublin North-Central constituencies, might be licensed. This is a genuine concern and Mr. Halpenny is trying to outline what is happening in other parts of Ireland where this arrangement exists. It is a valid issue but I do not know whether it will be covered by the legislation. Perhaps, people are setting up straw men but some say this is what they want.

Chairman

Let us stick to the issue of improving bus services throughout the city. Everyone to whom I have spoken about this issue, including union members, say the orbital route, for example, between Tallaght and Blanchardstown in Dublin has one of the most diabolical bus services in Europe. The committee would like that position to improve and that is the issue we would like to address.

Mr. Michael Halpenny

The Chairman made a valid point but Deputy Curran asked a number of other questions and he is entitled to a reply.

Chairman

A number of members who have questions must leave shortly and, therefore, I would like Mr. Halpenny to address the Deputy's questions briefly.

Mr. Michael Halpenny

The DTA is specific to the greater Dublin area and nobody could tell us what would happen elsewhere in the State. Deputy Curran asked about feeder services. When the DART came on stream many routes operated as feeder services to it but there are only two or three today. Dublin Bus will have a major role in feeding into the Luas, metro and other transport modes. I do not say I support or encourage that but I can see that is the plan some people have.

The Deputy asked how long subcontracting would take but I have no idea. Services on orbital routes in new areas beyond Dublin are required. It was proposed these areas would be serviced through subcontractors. I do not know if that remains the plan but, as Mr. McCamley said, we would adopt a pragmatic approach to it. We know the services are necessary and it has been agreed they can happen in principle.

Chairman

I have taken a great deal of time to examine all the options carefully and I have consulted all the interest groups, not least departmental officials. The last viable plan on the table — I do not refer to privatisation, deregulation and the other issues the unions do not want to hear about — proposed the next 15% of buses provided on orbital routes would be operated by the private sector while Dublin Bus would continue to operate existing orbital routes. Both Mr. Halpenny and Mr. McCamley were involved in the discussions on this with the Department and Dublin Bus in mid-2005. That would be the basis for restarting discussions to ensure additional buses are put on the streets and private sector involvement can be secured without having to deal with the issues we accept the union is not prepared to address on radial routes. That is the basis of going forward and I hope the union will be prepared to discuss that in principle with the Department and Dublin Bus.

Mr. Michael Faherty

We have been in discussion with the Department about this for a long time.

Chairman

Not since mid-2005.

Mr. Michael Faherty

That is no fault of ours.

Chairman

Is the union prepared to restart discussions? One of the issues for the committee is what it will recommend in its report to the Minister as the way forward.

Mr. Michael Faherty

Most of my members have a relevant and reasonable question to ask in this regard. They would say that if there is a need or policy that 15% — approximately 170 buses — should be operated by the private sector, there is nothing wrong with Dublin Bus subcontracting that level of buses to the private sector. The private sector would then be doing the work, but Dublin Bus would still control and manage the network, which would be to the customers' benefit. In that scenario the private sector would operate its 170 buses. My members want to know what is wrong with that solution.

Chairman

Dublin Bus has a massive job to do to improve the quality of service on its existing radial routes. I take the point made about congestion, but the quid pro quo in our proposals is that we will deal with the congestion issue. I put it to both the NBRU and SIPTU that there has been a significant improvement with regard to bus corridors and congestion, but the extra buses required have not been put on those routes. A good example of this is the south quays where we have a new bus corridor, but there is no evidence of extra buses on it. Several other bus corridors have hardly any buses using them in off-peak periods. If there is anything to learn from the Luas experience, it is that people will use the service if they can expect a reliable high-frequency service.

As I understand it, there was significant progress on the agreement in 2005. It is very much in the interest of Dublin Bus and gives us the opportunity to expand the fleet quickly through providing extra services in new areas through the private sector. I put it to the delegations that the agreement is in the interest of Dublin Bus with regard to wider provision of bus services for the city.

Deputy Chris Andrews

I thank the delegates for their presentation. I would be reluctant to rush into competition and introduce deregulation. Dublin Bus, as acknowledged by everyone, does a fantastic job. I am somewhat surprised by Mr. Faherty's claim that he is concerned about the future of Dublin Bus. There will always be a future for a bus service when it offers the flexibility referred to by Deputy Curran. How Dublin Bus works in the future may change but there will always be a core need for it.

Hundreds of new buses should not cause problems. The main concerns are reliability, flexibility, frequency and speed. Deputy Broughan suggested the fare could be reduced to €1, but even if it was reduced to one cent, people would not use it unless it was reliable, efficient and frequent. The main obstacle to improvements in the service is congestion. I have seen large numbers of buses in the city centre, but congestion blocks their movement. If competition and new buses are to be introduced, they should be introduced within the context of Dublin Bus. We should establish a framework through which Dublin Bus would operate the new buses, such as that referred to by Mr. Faherty, namely, the subcontracting of services on orbital routes.

This seems a good solution to me. All people want is a good service. Dublin Bus has done a good job and provided a good service. Any new service must be regulated. We must have a level playing field. We cannot have operators sitting on their licences and playing games with the transport system, which is clearly what some are doing. If we establish a subcontracting system and private operators use the Dublin Bus framework, we will achieve a uniformity of service, which is important for customers. Is it possible to examine and address the phenomenon of private operators sitting on their licences? It is certainly not in anybody's interest and obviously a source of annoyance, not only for the unions but also for management and users of the bus service.

Everybody mentioned congestion charges. I represent a large area extending from Kevin Street to Pearse Street and note that one's quality of life, including family life, is affected by congestion. Do the delegates have a view on congestion charges?

It is very important that the committee progress the rapid transport bus service from Connolly Station to St. Stephen's Green. There seems to be a lack of clarity regarding why it is not running. The Chairman and Deputy Curran raised this issue at the last meeting with Dublin Bus. We can and need to put the service in place.

Deputy Áine Brady

I will not delay because most of the questions have been asked. I seek clarification on the Chairman's point regarding private operators on orbital routes. I agree with Deputy Chris Andrews on the subcontracting of private operators by Dublin Bus. Is Mr. Faherty stating this is the answer? I take on board what he says.

I represent Kildare North. Celbridge, for instance, has a private operator, Circle Line, whose coaches arrive five minutes ahead of those of Dublin Bus. This is absolutely outrageous. The overall service is insufficient, yet the private operator is licensed to arrive five minutes ahead of Dublin Bus.

Mr. Michael Faherty

I welcome the contribution of Deputy Chris Andrews. There will be a Bus Átha Cliath in 20 years, long after I retire, but I am concerned that the company will be squeezed such that it will only be providing a feeder service. I want to make that point because all modes of transport are being modernised and upgraded.

On the question of having 15% of buses, or 170, operating privately, I hope the committee agrees that the additional buses are required as soon as possible rather than in four or five years. There is no point bringing them into operation when the metro is being built and when congestion is worse. The buses are urgently needed and must be delivered within the next two years. In the absence of a Dublin transport authority, or any other regulatory body, who would regulate the 170 private sector buses? Who would plan and decide on the network in which they would operate? These questions are extremely important.

Chairman

We are told the Dublin transport authority legislation will be before the committee as soon as the Dáil returns. Meanwhile, the Dublin Transportation Office is doing a very significant job. I do not know how much contact Dublin Bus has with it. The office which will be subsumed by the Dublin transport authority could consider the roll-out of the orbital routes in the short term.

Mr. Michael Faherty

I have said what I have to say on the matter.

Mr. Michael Halpenny

In deference to Deputy Curran, I wish to answer two of his questions. He alluded to the 2001 agreement on subcontracting which has been dealt with in a roundabout way. It is still there but has never been fully utilised.

Deputy John Curran

Is there an impediment?

Mr. Michael Halpenny

Dublin Bus has never sought to use it. There is a time imperative.

I take it that the question about protracted negotiations is not pejorative or accusatory.

Deputy John Curran

It is not, but it is about the sense of urgency.

Mr. Michael Halpenny

No offence is taken. There were background discussions in 2005 which ceased for reasons not clear to me. That did not come from us. We assume that there were other reasons. We have not been found wanting in engaging with the issue, notwithstanding the complexities involved and the difficulty of securing change. It is like trying to turn the tanker in the Liffey while everything is going on. Any change would be possible if the world could stop while it happened.

I do not want to be accused of evading the question about the 15%. That arose in the context of market growth and expansion. Mr. Michael Faherty is correct that there are significant questions being asked about whether there is a mechanism for subcontracting and, if so, why that will not do. Discussions did take place in that context but they encompassed the possibility that not only would it be up to the next 15%, but that Dublin Bus would also have an opportunity to grow under market expansion within the greater Dublin area. There was a focus on orbitals with Dublin Bus concentrating on radial routes. There was also discussion about wages and terms and conditions of employment. Our experience of competition has affected labour cost only. We will not be party to any discussion that will result in the degradation of terms and conditions or security of employment.

Chairman

I accept that.

Mr. Michael Halpenny

Fine. Pragmatism has been the operative word for us throughout this discussion. We have a commitment to our members, the public and public ownership and control. We will engage in these discussions, in that framework, notwithstanding our serious reservations and concerns that no case has been made for any market opening. As long as there has been a mechanism available, we have never balked at any discussion or engagement with the company over the 11 change programmes and viability plans that it has introduced over the past 15 years, or any discussions about change and improvement with the Department of Transport. The committee should not ask me how long it takes. If there already is a tool to do the job, why spend a great deal of time making one whose shape may not be clear? This is behind what Mr. Faherty says; there is a mechanism and if we are up against time, we should concentrate on the things we can do rather than those we are not sure of doing. That includes the Dublin transport authority project.

Chairman

Would anyone else like to comment?

Mr. Bill McCamley

I wish to respond to Deputy Curran's question about the buses lying up in the city centre. There are historical reasons for this, but it is not acceptable. We know that, and so we have been joining up routes, which is what I have been in the process of doing for the last five years. It is not being done quickly enough but there are other considerations. Buses are situated at certain points for a variety of reasons, for example, to cut down on night mileage or to jump in and take the capacity off particular routes. It is not the answer and Dublin Bus is energetically dealing with the problem. Deputy Curran is right to say it is unacceptable.

Deputy John Curran

To be fair, and I do not say this as a criticism, but apart from the trade union representation here today, we have looked at other issues as regards pinch points and whatever, and we acknowledge that road space is a finite resource in Dublin city. It just arose in that context.

Mr. Bill McCamley

In that context, Deputy Chris Andrews asked us whether we had a policy as regards congestion charges. Obviously, we are not going to put our heads-----

Deputy Chris Andrews

I asked whether the union representatives had a policy view, not a policy.

Mr. Bill McCamley

We have individual views, although I do not believe there is a union policy on this issue. However, I believe the Deputy is right and Deputy Curran is also indicating that this is his view. It is an old medieval city, with suburban sprawl. Road space is very narrow and I have referred already to the fact that there should be common running on the Luas. People criticise bus lanes, but there is absolutely no excuse for what is happening as regards Luas lines. How this may be dealt with is a matter for the Department of Transport, however, not the unions.

Deputy Chris Andrews

Are union members broadly supportive of a congestion charge? Would it make their work any easier?

Mr. Bill McCamley

The trade union movement is a broad church and we have all types of people in our ranks who support Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party, Sinn Féin, etc., so people obviously entertain different views on this question. It has not as yet been left on our doorstep, through conference.

Mr. Michael Faherty

On that question, the bus driver does not take the view one might expect. If we can deliver quality bus corridors, QBCs, he or she does not have to worry about what other traffic is on the road. If the QBCs are there and there is congestion on the car corridors, the cars tend to come onto the bus lanes, which presents its own problems.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Is it not a fundamental difficultly of running a good service that the mere existence of rush hours presents problems? So many vehicles must be available at particular times while at other times a much smaller fleet is required. Is that not the problem? One discerns, even when talking to Bus Éireann workers, that this is an issue which surfaces again and again.

The problem presented by rush hours is a specific issue. I believe the committee is meeting the head of the quality bus networks, QBNs, Mr. Ciarán de Burca, tomorrow. We often say, for example, there were 11 QBNs and then there were 13. Why has there not been a much more ruthless application of QBNs? Both the Deputy who has just left and I myself were members of Dublin City Council and I know this sometimes reflected the failure of the Department of Transport and traffic departments to insist on change on, for example, the famous Malahide and Clontarf routes. However, it is impossible to apply a QBN on some routes, such as the one to Howth. This type of question might arise tomorrow. Can a QBN be done on a road that is only the width of the space between the seats here? Would the unions have expected a much more ruthless application? In some countries such as China and particularly in Fuzhou near Hong Kong, for example, rather than spending billions on metros and Luas equivalents, they seem to have gone for just dedicated busways and this means a cheaper implementation. Obviously the unions have been unhappy with the implementation with QBNs here.

Chairman

We have a final comment from Senator Donie Cassidy. We apologise to Dáil na nÓg, but we will be finished shortly and will have them in straightaway. We did not specify a time, as we knew this particular issue before the committee might run on.

Senator Donie Cassidy

I thank the Chairman for allowing me in and I have just one question about road safety. Are union members supportive of the black box technology which we are trying to implement on all public service transport as regards recording and definitively knowing what happens in the event of an accident? As a former bus driver in my earlier days, I believe that any wage increase they ever got was dearly earned because the job requires 100% concentration all the time.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Senator Cassidy must have done everything in his time.

Senator Donie Cassidy

It has been a hard road.

Chairman

I will give the delegate a chance to sum up before we finish.

Mr. Michael Faherty

I regret that we are not familiar with the technology to which the Senator referred. He knows that there is an obvious commitment on the part of bus drivers and transport workers generally towards safety. Within Dublin transport services there is a plethora of observation devices for various reasons.

Senator Donie Cassidy

It is the same as an aircraft. Within 20 minutes we can find out definitively what caused an accident, at what speed a bus was travelling and who was at fault.

Chairman

The Senator should bring that information to the committee.

Senator Donie Cassidy

I will bring it to the attention of the Chairman.

Mr. Bill McCamley

The diagnostics on a vehicle can provide much information. There are eight cameras on every bus which can give us a good idea of what happened on and around a bus. We will also be installing a location device next year, with safety programmes of every shape and description.

Mr. Michael Halpenny

I apologise to Dáil na nÓg for any contribution we have made to the delay. We were happy to be invited and would be happy to come back, if that is the wish of the committee. We would also like to make further submissions. We hope we have made our position clear and that the Chairman will forgive us for dwelling on the UK experience of deregulation. It is important that committee members understand where we and our members are coming from. It is an issue we may have to revisit, if the unions are called in to deal with Bus Éireann. I hope the committee is clear on our overall position.

Mr. Michael Faherty

We are encouraged by the sense of urgency of the committee to deliver in the short term. During the years we have become used to plans and other ideas that were either never delivered or delivered years later. As we cannot afford that timeframe anymore, we are delighted with the seeming sense of urgency of the committee to deliver. I know its members are aware of the congestion and the problems associated with it, but we have been dealing with the agencies responsible for many years and are totally frustrated with the lack of progress. We wish members luck in dealing with that issue.

Our view on the need for additional buses is that it would be easier to deliver and more acceptable to all concerned if it was done under the auspices of Bus Átha Cliath by subcontracting.

Chairman

I thank the delegates for their contributions and being so frank with us. There are one or two issues I would like to cover. It was stated Dublin Bus had the lowest subvention in Europe, a point I myself have been making. However, it has been pointed out to me that this does not include the fact that Dublin Bus has free buses. Comparing like with like, the subvention is reasonably good. The point made that €60 million is taken up because of congestion is fair.

Somebody has to pay for free buses. In respect of €1 fares, somebody must pay the subsidy; inevitably, that is the taxpayer. We had the four city managers appear before us to talk about the congestion issue. I have been pleasantly surprised, in my discussions with officials from the transport unit of Dublin City Council, by their plans to free up the city centre. They are looking at the possibility of constructing two Bailey bridges within the next six months from Hawkins Street to Marlborough Street and at the proposed Macken Street Bridge. We will ask the Dublin City Council managers to bring forward a plan within the next six months to make Dublin city centre car-free, particularly the O'Connell Street and College Green areas. That will have a major impact on congestion.

I ask the delegates to come back to us with a list of the pinch-points they mentioned. Who better than Dublin Bus drivers to identify the locations of particular pressure? We will put it to Mr. Ciarán de Burca, project manager of the quality bus network project office, when he appears before a meeting of the committee tomorrow, that we can wait no longer to deal with these pinch-points. One of the recommendations we will inevitably make is that in future, quality bus corridors should come under the remit of critical strategic infrastructure legislation. In every location that a quality bus corridor is proposed to be introduced, the same old record is played as a small number of local residents protest against it. Such delays must no longer be tolerated. The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, is determined to deal with the congestion issue. The other side of the equation is that we must get more buses on the streets as quickly as possible.

Having listened to the delegates' presentation, I am confident that there is flexibility and pragmatism on the part of the unions and that the three objectives outlined by Mr. Faherty are exactly the same as ours. With that type of approach, it will be possible for the Department of Transport, Dublin Bus management and the unions representing Dublin Bus workers to work together for a common end. We have defined the area in which agreement can be reached. As far as the committee is concerned, deregulation and privatisation as we know them are not on the agenda. A formula is available to us that can provide the extra buses and ensure a quality bus transport system that is just as efficient and reliable as the Luas while allowing Dublin Bus to continue as the lead agency.

I am confident Dublin Bus workers can deliver the necessary improvements. I will return to the Dublin Bus driver I spoke of earlier but whose name I could not recall. I understand his name is Mr. Mick Lacey.

Mr. Bill McCamley

That is correct.

Chairman

He has 40 years' experience as a Dublin Bus driver and the company could not find a better ambassador. He did not know who I was when I spoke to him. There is no question that Dublin Bus, including workers, unions and management, can implement the speedy progress we require. Our report to the Minister will highlight the positive response from the union delegates today.

Deputy John Curran

On a technical point, will the secretariat to the committee clarify the question of whether a licence issue is an impediment to the St. Stephen's Green to Connolly Station link being undertaken by Dublin Bus?

Chairman

We will clarify that. We will also seek clarification on cases where licences are held by private operators but a bus service is not being provided.

Mr. Bill McCamley

We welcome that.

Deputy John Curran

We should publish that information.

Mr. Bill McCamley

That would be good.

Chairman

I thank the delegates.

Sitting suspended at 5.35 p.m. and resumed at 5.40 p.m.