Deloitte to advise on liquidation or examinership of Dublin Bus

Stevek101

NTA seems to be the first crowd doing the job right.

devnull

lxflyer wrote: »

Exactly what has the NTA done that has produced this distrust?

And that is why certain people don't like them, because people are used to the light touch regulation and input previous bodies had, where CIE and it's three companies were not really accountable to anyone.

That makes life harder for the CIE companies, so obviously staff of them etc don't like the fact as they were used to the previously mentioned light touch regulation which did nothing for public transport users.

TheBandicoot

Don't put words in people's mouths.

My own reason for distrusting them is the perception I have that they are intentionally unwilling to work meaningfully with the current public service operators(CIE) and are instead actively sabotaging events in order to pursue a politically-mandated agenda of privatisation. I have no love of CIE, but I want to see it abolished and replaced with an entirely nationalised service with no trappings of a limited company, corporate machinery or expectation to make a profit; not replaced with private operators. It's ideological on my end, I have absolutely no personal or family connection to any CIE entity outside of being a daily Irish Rail commuter.

LXFlyer

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Don't put words in people's mouths.

My own reason for distrusting them is the perception I have that they are intentionally unwilling to work meaningfully with the current public service operators(CIE) and are instead actively sabotaging events in order to pursue a politically-mandated agenda of privatisation. I have no love of CIE, but I want to see it abolished and replaced with an entirely nationalised service with no trappings of a limited company, corporate machinery or expectation to make a profit; not replaced with private operators. It's ideological on my end, I have absolutely no personal or family connection to any CIE entity outside of being a daily Irish Rail commuter.

Exactly what evidence do you have that they are "actively sabotaging events"?

TheBandicoot

None, and I don't claim to have any or that there is any. It's just my perception/opinion.

devnull

The most important thing with any regulator is the PASSENGER is put at the front of the queue and the NTA has been a breath of fresh air in that regard, no operator is more important than the bigger picture and the crazy regime we had before the NTA where licenses were taking years to process and being rejected for spurious reasons is thankfully well in the past now.

Stevek101

I don't know how you can distrust a group who are so transparent. They are the first transport organisation to have proper public consultations here. All contracts are on display and performance reviews are regularly updated. The more control they get the better.

LXFlyer

TheBandicoot wrote: »

None, and I don't claim to have any or that there is any. It's just my perception/opinion.

I'm merely curious as to what actions that the NTA have taken so far has given you this perception/opinion?

TheBandicoot

I'm not interested in debating as I cannot defend my position.

My position is just that I don't believe in private companies operating public services. Regardless of whether they appear to offer a better service in comparison.

TheBandicoot

lxflyer wrote: »

I'm merely curious as to what actions that the NTA have taken so far has given you this perception/opinion?

Like I said, none in particular. Just my subjective opinion from the tone of their reports that I've read and the way transport policy is moving.

TheBandicoot

Stevek101 wrote: »

They are the first transport organisation to have proper public consultations here.

No reason a reformed public service operator couldn't do that as well. Just because CIE are awful doesn't mean all public operators would be.

Stevek101 wrote: »

All contracts are on display and performance reviews are regularly updated.

Yes, they do, and I know why you think that is good, but I don't believe in the very concept of having contracts in place in the public service world. The state should just directly run the service in-house and hold itself up to standards it sets based on international experience/public consultation, and then remedying the problems by arranging extra funding etc. if needed. Rather than creating a shell company it fully owns and then contracting it to do the work, which is just bizarre and wrong.

LXFlyer

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Like I said, none in particular. Just my subjective opinion from the tone of their reports that I've read and the way transport policy is moving.

I just find that rather staggering to be honest.

For the first time the management of our transport services - be they rail or bus - is now being handled by a unified organisation whose prime objective is to provide an integrated service to the end customer, who are finally being provided with exceptionally clear rationale for every decision that is being taken, something we have never had before in this country with regard to public transport.

The NTA is still in embryonic stage, and this process is going to take some considerable time. However, everything I have seen has suggested that at last the passenger is finally being considered before anyone else in the context of how the service is developed. That has to be a good thing.

Provided very tight performance criteria are included in any future contracts, why shouldn't private operators be able to operate PSO services?

Have you actually taken the time to read the various reports in detail or are you basing your comment on reports here?

LXFlyer

TheBandicoot wrote: »

No reason a reformed public service operator couldn't do that as well. Just because CIE are awful doesn't mean all public operators would be.



Yes, they do, and I know why you think that is good, but I don't believe in the very concept of having contracts in place in the public service world. The state should just directly run the service in-house and hold itself up to standards it sets based on international experience/public consultation, and then remedying the problems by arranging extra funding etc. if needed. Rather than creating a shell company it fully owns and then contracting it to do the work, which is just bizarre and wrong.

That is where I would fundamentally disagree - self-regulation just does not work - you have to have an element of independence and an arms length relationship.

Stevek101

TheBandicoot wrote: »

The state should just directly run the service in-house and hold itself up to standards it sets based on international experience/public consultation, and then remedying the problems by arranging extra funding etc. if needed.

So the only solution is to keep throwing money at it? CIE has failed to meet an accepted level of standard for years now. All recent improvements are thanks to the NTA and how long have they been around!

TheBandicoot

lxflyer wrote: »

For the first time the management of our transport services - be they rail or bus - is now being handled by a unified organisation whose prime objective is to provide an integrated service to the end customer, who are finally being provided with exceptionally clear rationale for every decision that is being taken, something we have never had before in this country with regard to public transport.

All this is good, yes, and is much needed. But it is allowing private companies to tender and awarding them contracts, which to me invalidates it. I would be happier to see the NTA simply operate the services, given how strong it is as you have excellently pointed out.

lxflyer wrote: »

The NTA is still in embryonic stage, and this process is going to take some considerable time. However, everything I have seen has suggested that at last the passenger is finally being considered before anyone else in the context of how the service is developed. That has to be a good thing.

It is a good thing. But the state should be providing the service that the NTA judges is best, not private companies.

lxflyer wrote: »

Provided very tight performance criteria are included in any future contracts, why shouldn't private operators be able to operate PSO services?

Because they are private companies.

lxflyer wrote: »

Have you actually taken the time to read the various reports in detail or are you basing your comment on reports here?

Yes, on half-reading some of the reports posted here. I think in particular Antoin's analysis is spot on and his predictions accurate, but again, the point is Dublin Bus shouldn't be a 'company' that can be liquidated at all, and it shouldn't have to be tendering for contracts.

TheBandicoot

Stevek101 wrote: »

So the only solution is to keep throwing money at it? CIE has failed to meet an accepted level of standard for years now. All recent improvements are thanks to the NTA and how long have they been around!

So hold CIE up to those standards, but actually make the means available to it to meet those standards. My perception is that the NTA is currently setting standards which are very good for the passenger, but that CIE is unable to meet without a proper subsidy, which central government and the NTA refuses to provide. It is just a clever manoeuvre designed to get rid of CIE(thus saving the government money by getting out of the business of providing transport at all) and bring in private operators.

TheBandicoot

lxflyer wrote: »

That is where I would fundamentally disagree - self-regulation just does not work - you have to have an element of independence and an arms length relationship.

I agree. But I think it is quite possible to have that relationship between two cogs of the state.

LXFlyer

Your logic bamboozles me.

What you're saying basically is that no private company should provide any service on contract to the state?

Have we moved overnight to a communist/socialist model of doing things in this state??

TheBandicoot

lxflyer wrote: »

What you're saying basically is that no private company should provide any service on contract to the state?

Yes, that is what I am saying. To a degree. It's fine to have a cleaning contractor or bus/building maintenance contractor, something like that which is for internal service. But services that are intended for public use, like a transport operator, should be public.

And no, the country does not work that way, and quite probably never will. It is just my personal political belief, and I see the NTA and current government policy as being way out of alignment with those beliefs that I hold.

Stevek101

TheBandicoot wrote: »

So hold CIE up to those standards, but actually make the means available to it to meet those standards. My perception is that the NTA is currently setting standards which are very good for the passenger, but that CIE is unable to meet without a proper subsidy, which central government and the NTA refuses to provide. It is just a clever manoeuvre designed to get rid of CIE(thus saving the government money by getting out of the business of providing transport at all) and bring in private operators.

A blank cheque, those days are gone.

Latest tender for market research tender has this in it:

18 RE-ORGANISATION OF BUS ATHA CLIATH-DUBLIN BUS
18.1 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Contract. If BAC or the Government of Ireland or any Department thereof should re-organise the business and/or legal structure of BAC (whether by dividing its business between two or more corporate bodies or otherwise). the obligations of BAC may be divided between such bodies and the Contractor shall thereafter deal with such bodies as if the parts of this Contract relevant to the business of such bodies formed a contract between the Contractor and such corporate bodies.

Anyone?

ballooba

lxflyer wrote: »

Have we moved overnight to a communist/socialist model of doing things in this state??

People are perfectly entitled to their opinions and ideologies. There's no need for the hyperbole and it's going to make for a very boring discussion if this thread turns into a socialist versus capitalist one. Please.

LXFlyer

I have absolutely no issue with people's different ideologies, but in this context it is a valid comment as that is effectively what is being advocated - I'm not condemning the man for his viewpoint, he's perfectly entitled to it. I respect him for having his own beliefs.

But I would vehemently disagree that the services must be provided by a public body even where a private company can do it better - as the poster in question posted above. That is doing something for the sake of doing something and not putting the customer first.

The latter HAS to be the objective of public transport in Ireland and that is what I believe the NTA are trying to deliver, based on reading all the various reports published to date and the ongoing rollout of improved passenger information.

end of the road

devnull wrote: »

And that is why certain people don't like them, because people are used to the light touch regulation and input previous bodies had, where CIE and it's three companies were not really accountable to anyone.

That makes life harder for the CIE companies, so obviously staff of them etc don't like the fact as they were used to the previously mentioned light touch regulation which did nothing for public transport users.

yeah, because its only CIE staff who wouldn't trust a body like the NTA right?

antoinolachtnai

TheBandicoot wrote: »

All this is good, yes, and is much needed. But it is allowing private companies to tender and awarding them contracts, which to me invalidates it. I would be happier to see the NTA simply operate the services, given how strong it is as you have excellently pointed out.

Unfortunately, The Altmark ruling and the subsequent European Directive 1370/2007 require bus routes to go out to tender by 2019. There are exceptions, but they don't apply to our situation, so it isn't really something that is open to discussion. That is the greater context.

It is a good thing. But the state should be providing the service that the NTA judges is best, not private companies.

The problem is that this structure never really worked very well. The old Department of Posts and Telegraphs was the classic example. There are a bunch of reasons why it was so awful, but it really was awful. It famously used to take literally years to get a phone line and you needed political 'pull'. It was restructured into 'semi-state' companies to resolve this.

Yes, on half-reading some of the reports posted here. I think in particular Antoin's analysis is spot on and his predictions accurate, but again, the point is Dublin Bus shouldn't be a 'company' that can be liquidated at all, and it shouldn't have to be tendering for contracts.

One particular problem with the P+T setup was that the people inside it were never really responsible for the costs, because they knew it could never be liquidated. Cost overruns would always have to be picked up by the government, and the government would then have to try to recover the money from the users. The organization had the government over the metaphorical barrel.

It does not seem intuitively 'right' that a public bus company can be liquidated, I agree with you. But there is good logic to the idea nonetheless.

end of the road

Stevek101 wrote: »

NTA seems to be the first crowd doing the job right.

yeah, just while they get settled in, once they do it will be back to business as usual, they allowed one rail line to be sacrificed to divert funds to a political stunt and when IE eventually want to shut the lot they will bend over backwards to allow it to happen, no i'm afraid the NTA are just another "jobs for the boys" club just like CIE management

end of the road

lxflyer wrote: »

Provided very tight performance criteria are included in any future contracts, why shouldn't private operators be able to operate PSO services?

because it will end up costing double or triple as fairs will sky rocket and very high subsidies will have to be payed to incentivize private companies to bid for the contract, and the tax payer has a duty to pay a high premium for privatisation so that the private companies can make a proffit on loss making routes, the NTA might set the fairs and subsidy for a while but they will bend over for the private operators later on, only public non-proffit companies can operate public services.

end of the road

TheBandicoot wrote: »

So hold CIE up to those standards, but actually make the means available to it to meet those standards. My perception is that the NTA is currently setting standards which are very good for the passenger, but that CIE is unable to meet without a proper subsidy, which central government and the NTA refuses to provide. It is just a clever manoeuvre designed to get rid of CIE(thus saving the government money by getting out of the business of providing transport at all) and bring in private operators.

which of course won't save the government money, but it will delude the public into thinking that it will when actually it will cost the government more

antoinolachtnai

If the subsidies are so high, then surely more private companies will come in to compete? The tax payer already has to pay for the shortfall on loss-making routes.

You have a point to some degree in relation to train contracts, but getting into the bus business doesn't exactly have big barriers to entry.

end of the road

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If the subsidies are so high, then surely more private companies will come in to compete?

possibly, but then it could get to the stage where only a couple of operators operate the services as it could become unsustainable for the rest meaning any benefits of having lots of operators because of high subsidies goes out the window, of course it could also end up that even if multiple operators come in that the competing could be small and that the subsidies go up more.

Cookie_Monster

I don't particularly like the NTA either, there is no reason for them to exist. It's just yet another quango doing the job the DofT is supposed to be doing and duplicating all the costs and expenses by being seperate.