Public transport deregulation offers little if any improvement in service, higher fares and worse conditions, writes Mick Halpenny
In the course of his opinion piece in last Saturday's Irish Times on the subject of bus supply, Senator Tom Morrissey of the Progressive Democrats dwelt heavily on supposed threats from bus unions, public funding of CIÉ and the purported benefits of competitive tendering.
In doing so, the good senator did not stray very far from what passes for Progressive Democrat policy in this area. This effectively is socio-economic doggerel to promote private interests, undermine public enterprise and marginalise workers and their unions.
It is heavy on prejudice and assertion but extremely light on fact or any real concept of the public good. In the debate on public transport, what is required from the PDs and others is less rant and more rationality, not to mention a clearer understanding of how transport and economic planning affects the day-to-day lives of ordinary people.
Before addressing his arguments, let us make a declaration of interest. Siptu, as a union, will unashamedly defend the interests of its members and working people generally against all comers. In doing so, however, unlike the PDs, Siptu does have a remit for the public good, which is why we generally support public enterprise as a means of delivering services to the community at large.
Senator Morrissey began and ended his article by drawing attention to the "threats" of union withdrawal of labour over the issue of bus supply. Apart from the uncomfortable fact that there was no stoppage, he omitted to mention the critical point that the reason for the reaction among ordinary bus workers was the report that the PDs at Cabinet level were said to be refusing badly needed buses to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann unless there was capitulation to their privatisation demands.
Siptu properly sought a meeting with the Minister to clarify the situation, resulting in the confirmation that, subject to Cabinet approval, 100 buses would be supplied forthwith to Dublin Bus and 160 to Bus Éireann - with further supply to be the subject of discussion.
In doing so, it was made clear by the Department of Transport that both Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann have to comply with the stringent financial process stipulated by that department and by the Department of Finance. Thus, there is no basis whatsoever to Senator Morrissey's claim that there is no accountability for the €80 million funding for the buses in question.
Senator Morrissey spent the rest of his piece promoting the dubious benefits of competitive tendering as a method of "reform" in the bus market. While he protested overly that he was not suggesting the model used in the UK - and with considerable justification - it is worth remembering what that experience has thrown up over the last 15 or 20 years of deregulation.
Far from providing choice to the consumer from a large range of private operators, as suggested by Senator Morrissey, the evidence is that in Scotland 95 per cent of bus journeys are provided by just three big private operators. Moreover, the recent House of Commons select committee reported that in some areas such as West Yorkshire, the average number of bids per tender was 1.04: that is, no competition at all.
The same committee, on evidence from experts in the transport field including private operators, found there was no connection between competitive tendering and bus use, which is much more influenced by the level of public subsidy. More alarmingly for the consumer, over the period of deregulation, the committee found that fares had risen above inflation with little evidence of any fare reduction through competition.
Senator Morrissey skimmed over the UK experience because it offers nothing to Irish bus passengers and even less to Irish transport workers. In the first six years of deregulation, the numbers employed in the industry fell by 15 per cent and between 1986 and 2000 average earnings fell by 15 per cent.
He did, however, focus on what he terms "the London model", again asserting with no supporting evidence the supposed success of the deregulation experiment. The facts are that while bus usage has increased over recent years, it has done so because of the introduction of congestion charges (incidentally by a socialist mayor) and the inability of London Underground system to absorb more traffic.
Another report (MERA - 2003) found that the public subsidy to Transport for London (TfL) was projected to increase from £246 million to £1 billion by 2008/09. Further figures from the Bulletin of Public Transport Statistics 2003/04 show that there has been an identifiable increase over the years of deregulation in the London bus fare index from a factor of 73.8 in 1986 to 96.4 in 2003.
Of great interest to bus workers is the evidence of the TfL's director of surface transport, who offered evidence to the select committee that during the period when London Transport did not need a subsidy, it was because "that was achieved largely on the backs of the staff who absorbed worse pay and conditions".
Whether in Scotland, Yorkshire, London or Ireland, what deregulation and competitive tendering offers is little if any improvement in service, higher fares and worse conditions for employees. Nevertheless, the promoters of deregulation still demand the highest public subsidy possible, resulting in the transference of public wealth to the private sector with little or no added value.
We need to close the chapter on such failed experiments and move to a properly integrated public transport policy where the needs of the community, the fare-paying passengers, the tax payers and the employees are recognised. This will not be achieved by the politics of the PDs and their allies. For all its faults, the only system which will allow for such positive developments is the stability of public ownership and social partnership.
Mick Halpenny is national industrial secretary of Siptu