Committee for Infrastructure

OFFICIAL REPORT (Hansard)

Commercial Bus Service Permits and Transport Integration: Department for Infrastructure

9 June 2021 NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY

Committee for Infrastructure

Commercial Bus Service Permits and Transport Integration: Department for Infrastructure

9 June 2021

Members present for all or part of the proceedings: Miss Michelle McIlveen (Chairperson) Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson) Ms Martina Anderson Mr Roy Beggs Mr Cathal Boylan Mr Keith Buchanan Mrs Dolores Kelly Ms Liz Kimmins Mr Andrew Muir

Witnesses: Mr Stuart Gilmore Department for Infrastructure Ms Jackie Robinson Department for Infrastructure

The Chairperson (Miss McIlveen): I welcome, via StarLeaf, Jackie Robinson, director of the public transport division, and Stuart Gilmore, head of the public transport regulation branch. It is good to see you. Jackie, you can make some opening remarks, and members will follow up with questions.

Ms Jackie Robinson (Department for Infrastructure): Thank you very much, Chair. Thanks to the Committee for the opportunity to present to you. We will talk you through the commercial bus service permit (CBSP) system.

As detailed in your briefing, the commercial bus service permit scheme was introduced following the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. The aim of the scheme is to enable bus operators to identify gaps in the public transport network and to provide that service under a bus permit issued by the Department. The system complements the public transport network that the Department facilitates through the public service agreement (PSA) with Translink. The legislation sets out the considerations that the Department must take into account and who should be consulted when assessing the applications. I want to put on record that the Minister and the Department recognise the valuable role that the private bus and coach sector play in delivering public transport.

On the legislation specifically, sections 3 to 12 set out the key considerations that the Department must take into account when considering permit applications. The legislation also sets out who the Department must consult when it processes applications. That consultee list includes the Consumer Council, persons that provide services on any road along or near the routes that are subject to applications, the Chief Constable, district councils, other Departments and Tourism NI.

1 A number of bus permits are already in operation, including 34 regular stopping services, 26 of which are primarily for the transport of schoolchildren; 12 taxi bus services; five sightseeing services; and three express services. If an operator identifies a gap in provision and wants to run a service to meet the need, it completes an application that provides information to the Department. That information includes evidence of the need for the specific route and the demand for that route. In assessing the information that is provided, the Department consults the organisations listed in the legislation. The Consumer Council receives the original submission, as well as responses from other consultees, to inform its final recommendations. That adds to the time frame for the consultation stage, but it recognises that the Department is required by the legislation to take account of the recommendations made by the Consumer Council. That additional step ensures that the Consumer Council has all the available information to inform its recommendations.

You will be aware that, following an unsuccessful application for a bus permit, an operator applied for a judicial review (JR) of the process. Following that JR application, the Department reviewed the process used for permit applications and made a number of changes to ensure that the process is robust and sufficient expert advice is included in the decision-making.

In developing the changes to the process, the Department engaged with key stakeholders, including Bus and Coach NI (BCNI), which represents a large part of the private bus and coach industry in Northern Ireland, and several bus permit operators. We also consulted Translink, the Inclusive Mobility Transport Advisory Committee (IMTAC), the National Transport Authority (NTA), Tourism NI, the PSNI, the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) and the Consumer Council. Those changes were subsequently approved by the Department in May 2019. Following the restoration of the Assembly, the Minister approved the referral of applications to her when they are assessed to have a significant impact on the strategic public transport network or present potential policy implications.

The most significant changes were the creation of the new branch within the public transport division, the public transport regulation branch, which Stuart heads up and which is tasked with administering the system, and the introduction of a determination panel to consider new applications. The purpose of the panel is to provide more detailed scrutiny and review all available evidence. The three-person panel is chaired by the director of the public transport division, which is currently me, and has two DFI staff at grade 5 or grade 6 level. The panel considers the evidence provided and determines whether to approve or refuse applications. Where applications are assessed to have a significant impact on the strategic public transport network, the panel can refer determinations to the Minister.

To ensure a robust, evidence-based approach, the panel is provided with all the evidence submitted by the applicant, responses and comments from consultees, any available specialist advice and analysis prepared by the branch. In addition, a background brief is prepared for panel members to advise them on the relevant legislative considerations and other issues. That is important to ensure that all panel members are fully aware of the background and legal context within which they take decisions. They also sign conflict of interest declarations. The determination panel is not required for renewal or amendment applications, as those are considered by the head of the public transport regulation branch.

Other changes to the process include the use of specialist advice, where necessary, from, for example, economists, statisticians or transport planners. There has also been an increase in cooperation between the Department and the applicant throughout the process, and applicants can now see and agree to what will be issued to consultees. All the changes that have been made are designed to improve the process and ensure that it provides for fair and robust decision-making within the bounds of the legislation. However, they have increased the estimated time to process applications. The first permit application to be processed under the new arrangements was approved by the Department in December 2019. A further 11 applications have been processed, with five being approved and six being referred to the Minister.

As a result of the changes, a draft guidelines document was issued to operators, industry groups and the Consumer Council in March. Following written feedback and a meeting in April, officials agreed to do further work on the guidelines and to undertake a wider, more detailed consultation exercise. With regard to engagement, the Department established a bus operator forum in December 2019, which has continued to meet regularly since. The aim of the forum is to increase communication and engagement with the industry and to work in collaboration with operators, who deliver a valuable addition to the public transport offering in Northern Ireland. I understand that BCNI has also provided the Committee with a copy of its feedback to the draft guidelines. In the written feedback that the Department has provided to you, we have endeavoured to address the issues as far as possible. I do not intend to reiterate the briefing, but we will be happy to address any concerns.

2 I would, however, like to take a couple of minutes to elaborate on the increasing time frames included in the draft guidelines. The increase in the time frame is significant and represents a number of things: first, experience in the Department of the time that it takes to complete the application process; secondly, the need to allow time for expert consideration and the running of a determination panel; and an increased time frame for consultation. The latter reflects feedback from consultees that they should be given sufficient time to give due consideration to the information presented to them. I appreciate that the increased time frame is frustrating, but I hope that making it clear to potential applicants in advance how long the process may take will allow them to plan. There are opportunities for the process to be considerably shorter, and we will regularly review the process and update our guidelines as we learn more.

There are opportunities for refinement and streamlining the process for renewal applications. We will keep that under review as the next generation of renewals are processed. While renewal applications do not require submission to the determination panel, consultation with the consultees is required, and that is set down in legislation. Permit renewal is required every three years, and, again, that is set out in legislation.

As I have said, following the issues raised by the industry about the draft guidelines, we will engage with it over the coming months to ensure that the guidelines are accurate and best serve the needs of industry, while ensuring that the legislative requirements are maintained.

Chair and members, Stuart and I are happy to answer any questions that you may have.

The Chairperson (Miss McIlveen): Thank you very much for your presentation, Jackie. You have paid tribute to the sector and recognised the role that it plays, but it has been severely challenged in the past year. It has had difficulties, particularly with the tourist aspect of its businesses. It has sought financial support and faced challenges in that, so you can see that this is a sector that is under severe pressure.

There was a meeting on 14 April. The private operators feel that that was the first time that they were presented with the new guidance, which came as a shock to them, as you will know from the presentation that we received last week. In some ways, the sector feels that it is not highly regarded and there is no real place for it in the delivery of transport routes. From a general perspective, where does the Department see the private operators' role in the delivery of transport services?

Ms Robinson: As I have said, the purpose of the scheme is to allow private operators to provide services that complement the network, which is primarily delivered through the PSA with Translink, as you are well aware. The PSA stipulates that the Transport Holding Company or Translink must deliver most public transport services, but we are aware that there are gaps in that provision. We would very much like the private sector to be able to help us and fill those gaps. Ultimately, the most important people in all of this are the passengers who use our public transport network.

We presented what we consider to be a gap analysis to the forum that we have with the bus operators. It was not complete, but it gave an indication of where, we think, there are potential gaps. We would very much like to work collaboratively with the industry to make sure that the public in Northern Ireland are best served by the transport offering that is available to them.

The Chairperson (Miss McIlveen): You talked about wanting to work collaboratively. Yet, at our meeting last week, Karen Magill told us that it was at that meeting on 14 April that the industry was first presented with the guidance and learned that Minister Mallon had agreed a new process. She said:

"We were not consulted on it, nor were we party to that new process. It is a done deal. The new draft guidance reflects that new process."

Is that the case?

Ms Robinson: There was engagement with the industry throughout 2018 and 2019, before the new guidance was issued. My understanding is that it was presented to the industry in summer 2020 and that it had initial sight of it. However, I realise that the industry was not happy with that meeting in April. I was not in attendance at that meeting, but I have met Karen subsequently, and we have agreed to move forward collaboratively. We intend to co-produce the guidelines, but some of the

3 things in them are set out in legislation. The process that has been put in place largely reflects the JR application that was to be considered.

There are some things that we have done to improve the process that I would be reluctant to go back on. Think about, for example, the determination panel. As opposed to one person making a decision on an application, there are now three people who have a level of independence and can analyse and scrutinise the information in much more detail. That is a good thing. I would like to have the conversation again with Karen. The Committee may feel that that is not appropriate, but I think that that is the best way of making sure that there is a transparent process in place. I am keen to continue that.

There may be some opportunities for the process to be refined around, for example, the consultation exercise. When we looked at the process, we went back to the consultees and said, "How much time do you need to properly assess this?". The time that they were given previously was quite tight. We have now better reflected what is needed. Some of the applications that are coming in are very significant and require a lot of scrutiny. The process that we are now considering is much more balanced and is a better outcome for the industry.

The Chairperson (Miss McIlveen): I appreciate that. Lessons will be learned throughout the process, but I urge better collaboration between you and the sector. There is not a huge number of operators. They are keen to deliver a service, a lot of which will be at their own financial risk. I appreciate the terms of the agreement that you have with Translink and so on, but it is important that the Committee does not have to facilitate a discussion between the Department and the sector; that should happen naturally.

Ms Robinson: I could not agree with you more. I would very much like to enter into an agreement with the industry and to go forward collaboratively. You are aware that I have not been in this post for very long. I am still working to build up relationships with the industry. Working in a COVID scenario, when we cannot get together in a room, makes those things more difficult, but that is a priority for me.

Mr Hilditch: Thank you for your presentation, Jackie. Can you expand on the sixth key consideration in considering commercial bus service permits, which is:

"Such other matters as may be prescribed."?

Ms Robinson: Can you repeat that?

Mr Hilditch: I am looking for you to expand on the sixth key consideration that you noted. It comes under point "f":

"Such other matters as may be prescribed."

Can you expand on that a wee bit, please?

Ms Robinson: When we look at applications, we look at any significant issues. When the legislation was written in 2011, that was probably put in as a catch-all. It allows us to think about what will impact on the sector. It allows us to bring in current factors such as the COVID scenario, the need for a service for schoolchildren, or financial implications for other operators in the network. To be clear, that does not apply only to Translink; there may be other operators on a route, and we have to take their considerations into account as well.

Mr Hilditch: Thank you. Do all six of the key considerations listed carry equal weight? Is it a case of, if you do not qualify under one of them, you are out? Is there a veto situation with that?

Ms Robinson: There is not a veto situation. That goes back to the comment that I made to the Chair about the fact that there is a panel. Think of an interview situation. Having a three-person interview panel brings a level of consistency, and there will be a level of critical challenge between the members of that panel. That is what this panel does as well. One person may have a view, but the panel levels that out and makes sure that there is good consideration and a robust discussion.

Mr Hilditch: How much of an increase to the time required to progress applications is the new process estimated to have contributed?

4 Ms Robinson: It is significantly more. As we set down in the guidelines, we have tried to set out the maximum time for the process. There is potential for that to be reduced at every stage. Obviously, the current focus is on getting the guidelines out, but one of the key things that I want to focus on next is the application form. Quite often, we get an application form in that is not complete. We then have to go back and forward to the applicant to get information. That increases the time period for processing the application. I want to look at that application form to see whether we can do something so that it can be better understood and we get the information that we require first time. That would reduce the time frame.

We will not be able to do an awful lot about the time frame for the consultation exercise. That goes back to the comment that I made about the Consumer Council. The applicant has an opportunity to look at the information that will go out to the consultees. When that goes out, the consultees have an opportunity to respond to it and to bring in evidence. That evidence then goes back out to the Consumer Council to help inform its decision. That is a fairly lengthy process when there is a controversial or significant application.

The other bit that adds some time relates to the determination panel. The determination panel is made up of fairly high-level civil servants. It is not always easy to free up time in all three of their diaries, but we try our best to do so and put that in place as quickly as we can. We also need to make sure that there is sufficient time to get the evidence pack to them so that they can consider that. While there is an increased time frame, there are opportunities to reduce it, and the fact that there is an increased time frame provides a balance between having something that is very quick and having a process that is robust and transparent.

Mr Hilditch: Thank you. The news about taxi drivers in recent days concerns me. That is not good and is probably due to different systems and whatnot, and people are walking away. I am worried that the bus industry might go down the same road. I encourage you to do your best to try to facilitate.

Ms Robinson: As I said to the Chair, I really want to engage with the industry going forward, and where we can facilitate, we will, but it has to be within the legislation and the remit that is available to us.

Mr Hilditch: Finally, how regularly does the bus operator forum meet and in what format?

Ms Robinson: The bus operator forum is chaired by Stuart. I think — Stuart might correct me — that it meets quarterly. Is that right, Stuart?

Mr Stuart Gilmore (Department for Infrastructure): That is the intention. We met a lot more frequently last summer, due to COVID, just to keep up to date with the operators. The intention is to meet, at minimum, quarterly. This year, we met in February, then we met in April, as you are aware, and the intention is to meet over the summer and then have another meeting in September, one year before Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (PSVAR) exemptions kick in.

Mr Hilditch: Is that done on Zoom at the minute, or are there actual face-to-face meetings?

Ms Robinson: It is still, unfortunately, by Zoom, but we will attempt to go back to face-to-face meetings as soon as we can.

Mr Hilditch: OK. Thank you.

Mr K Buchanan: I want to follow on from David's point. Are the overarching organisations on that bus operator forum, or is it the individual operators?

Ms Robinson: Stuart can come in on the detail of who attends that. Bus and Coach NI, which is the umbrella organisation, is there, but we have operators, too. Stuart, do you want to list those who are invited?

Mr Gilmore: Yes. That is correct. We send an invitation to Bus and Coach NI and Coach Operators NI, and we invite every operator that holds a permit. More recently, with the draft guidelines, we extended that to operators that have an active application. They are not permit holders yet, but they have an application. We want to hear their views on the process as well. There is an open invitation. We advise Bus and Coach NI and Coach Operators NI that, if they know of anyone who wants to

5 come along and learn more about the bus permit system, they are more than welcome to do so, but we do not openly invite all 200 operators.

Mr K Buchanan: OK. Thank you. David asked a few of my other questions. I think that he has seen my sheet. That said, I want to give an example of an operator, Jackie. Let us say that an operator has a permit to run a 5.00 pm service, for argument's sake, from Belfast to Londonderry. That has to be renewed — correct me, at any time, if I am wrong — every three years, but, in the meantime, Translink runs a 5.00 pm service. What happens when that private operator wants to renew his or her permit, considering the fact that Translink has taken over that 5.00 pm service? Can it take over that 5.00 pm service? How does the process work when a private operator has the permit and Translink comes along and ultimately steals that operator's commuters? How do both those things tie together?

Ms Robinson: I would not like to think that Translink is stealing commuters off routes, and I am not sure that that would happen in practice. I will go back to what Translink can do. You will be aware that Translink operates under a PSA with the Department. Within that PSA, Translink has flexibility to make temporary or permanent changes to the network. Temporary changes can be things like a timetable or route change in the event of essential maintenance, civil unrest or holiday season timetables — the sort of things that you would expect. In relation to permanent changes, the overall network is divided into districts; for example, there are three Metro districts. Translink needs approval from the Department before it makes permanent changes that constitute over 3% of the scheduled mileage per district per month. Where permanent changes are required that constitute no more than 3% of the scheduled mileage, Translink will notify the Department as part of the normal reporting process. Those arrangements allow Translink to manage the network on behalf of the Department and to respond appropriately to unforeseen events and seasonal variations in demand. The arrangements also allow Translink to make adjustments to services, routes or timetables where passenger demand is sufficient or where there is an issue. That was one that particularly came to mind during COVID. Sometimes, additional buses were put on, especially as we started to move out of restrictions, to make sure that social distancing was maintained. We need to make sure that there is a dynamic and sustainable network that responds to the change in need.

Under regulation 1370, which is what the PSA is established under, the authority grants exclusive rights to the operator to discharge its public service obligations. Translink has exclusive rights to deliver the service that is set out in the PSA as per the timetable. It does not have exclusive rights to a route. If it came forward with a route, as you have set out, where it is duplicating a route that is in place, the Department would be looking to challenge that.

We are in the process of looking at a review of the PSA, because the current one expires in March 2022. We wrote to the Committee in the middle of March to alert members to that. The new PSA will be for a period of five years, with an option for a two-year extension. Under that PSA, Translink will be required to deliver the current network of services in Northern Ireland as well as the cross-border services. The new PSA will include a new performance framework with set targets for Translink, and that will be reviewed annually. Contract management arrangements will be reviewed as part of the review. Where necessary, they will be strengthened to provide the required assurance and to enable robust monitoring and oversight of performance and route management.

I do not know whether that helps.

Mr K Buchanan: Fair enough, thank you. Is the private operator at a disadvantage whenever he or she goes to do a renewal in three years' time, if Translink has come in closer to the 30-minute rule? I am not an expert on that, but are they at a disadvantage, then, considering that they were doing the route? Translink may have moved something, which it is, possibly, entitled to do. Are those private operators at a disadvantage?

Ms Robinson: I would say that a private operator coming through with a renewal is at an advantage, rather than a disadvantage, because that route is already in place. The operator will have already proven demand for the route and the service.

Mr K Buchanan: OK.

Ms Robinson: It is hard for me to say, were I to be faced with that example. At present, however, I have not been faced with it. I think that, on a renewal basis, it will be the private operator that has the advantage.

6 Mr K Buchanan: Thank you. I have one quick, final question. Are the guidelines in draft? I am a bit confused. Are they draft guidelines at the moment or are they actual guidelines?

Ms Robinson: I want to be clear on this one. The process was amended, and the process as amended was approved by the Department. I know that there is a debate on whether the industry was consulted; the Department would say that it was. We have notes of meetings where that process change was discussed. The new process was approved by the Department in 2019 and by the Minister following the restoration of the Assembly. It was at that stage that the Minister agreed that, in certain cases, applications would be moved to her. The guidelines that are being drafted are very much in draft, and the information that was sent out to the industry in March this year was a draft. Following that, and the meeting that happened in April, we, as officials, are very aware that the industry is not happy with the guidelines. We are starting to work with the industry, hopefully, in a co- production way. However, I would just like to say that the process currently has been agreed. It is in line with the JR application that was taken through. It would be difficult to row back on some of those changes, because they are a more robust way of making decisions. However, where there is an opportunity to reflect and to amend or tweak the process, we will do that.

The guidelines document is in draft, and we will work with the industry. For example — it is probably a fairly minor example — the industry told us that the guidance document does not give sufficient detail on the evidence that it has to provide. I am a bit reluctant to go down the route of setting that out in guidelines, because I do not want that to be seen as a definitive list of the evidence that is required, as every application will different. However, I intend to work with the industry to see if we can come up with examples that will help it.

The guidelines documents are for the industry and the Department and are there to make the process as easy as possible. I have to say that it has been a very difficult journey, but, where we can, we will, hopefully, make it better.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, Jackie and Stuart.

The Chairperson (Miss McIlveen): Six members have indicated that they wish to speak, and I am running really short of time. We may have a little leeway before we have to leave the room, but I make members aware that we are under pressure.

Ms Kimmins: I will keep it brief, because some of what I was going to ask has been covered. I reiterate the point from our meeting with operators last week, which is quite contrary to what we are hearing this morning. They certainly feel that they are being ill treated by the Department. They feel as though they are being locked out of the sector rather than being at an advantage in it.

Jackie, you mentioned that you were under the impression that there had been engagement. The operators said clearly that there was little or no engagement with them, and they said that they felt that there was a lack of proper consultation. I had planned to ask why there was no engagement, but you say that there was and that it went as far back as last year. We need clarification on what engagement there was before draft changes were made, because the operators are saying that that was not the case and that they did not hear anything about the change in guidance until they were sent copies of the draft in April. Why was the change so sudden? What is the explanation for that?

Ms Robinson: I think that it is very clear that there was a difference between the industry and the Department on the interpretation of what engagement happened. It was stated that the guidelines and the new process were just introduced into the system in March and April, but we have to recognise that the first application to go through that process did so at the end of 2019. Some 12 applications have been through the process already, so it is not brand new to anybody. I am not going to get into "he said, she said". If the engagement was not to the extent that the industry would like, we will take that on board and make sure that any consultation going forward is more formal and more robust and extensive.

Ms Kimmins: That would be helpful. As you know, over the past months, particularly around COVID support and all that, there have been other issues, but the engagement was repeatedly highlighted to us as an issue. If we can do all we can to improve that, it would certainly help.

My only other question is on the 30-minute rule, which Mr Buchanan talked about. Why did the Department feel that it was necessary to seek clarification on the 30-minute rule? The sector

7 described it as almost bringing the shutters down on the award of any express service permits in future. You said that you think that it is more of an advantage, but, just to get —.

Ms Robinson: When I was talking about it being an advantage, I meant that it is an advantage to a sitting tenant — somebody who is coming in for a renewal — more than it is for somebody who is trying to apply to run the same service, whether it is Translink or anyone else. In relation to the 30- minute rule, there was a bit of ambiguity around whether you take regular stopping services as one category and apply the 30-minute rule and treat express services separately or whether you take the two together.

The review that we are taking forward goes back to my lack of historical knowledge in this work area. I want to go back to basics and make sure that we do what we intend to do. The 30-minute rule is designed to protect people and to make sure that whoever is working on a route is not disadvantaged by somebody new coming in. Through the review, I want to make sure that we are applying that regularly and that there is no ambiguity in the approach.

There appears to have been a little bit of ambiguity on whether the 30-minute rule applies to all services or whether you take it by category and apply it. I want a definitive statement. I want to work through that with the industry. We are at the stage where, probably at the next meeting, we will have a discussion on it. I have also asked for the Consumer Council's view, so that we can take that on board, because, again, it goes back to some of the comments that I made to the Chair at the beginning: the passengers are the important people in this, and we need to make sure that we have a good service provision for them. The 30-minute rule review will provide clarity on that.

However, 30-minute rule is not a legislative requirement, and there has always been the idea that it could be set aside. When a panel is looking at an application, it may choose to set aside the 30-minute rule, if it thinks that there is, for example, sufficient evidence of demand for the service. Let us use Newry as an example: if the panel thought that the current service provision was insufficient and there were passengers not being picked up, maybe the 30-minute rule could be set aside and another operator could be allowed to come in with a 15-minute difference. The review is to provide clarity and to make sure that there is no ambiguity.

Ms Kimmins: As you said, with engagement with the sector, that is something that will need to be nailed down so that people have a proper understanding of the situation. The sense that we were getting from the operators was that any attempt to reinterpret the 30-minute rule would do the opposite of what is currently in place and prevent regular stopping services and express services coexisting along a shared or partially shared route. That is a very important one. If there is good engagement, the sector is able to get its views across and we can get some of that resolved, it will be very helpful. I am conscious that other members are looking to come in, so I will leave it at that. Thank you, Jackie.

Ms Robinson: Thank you, Ms Kimmins.

Mr Boylan: Thanks, Jackie and Stuart. Jackie, following what my colleague said, clearly the industry feels that it has been badly treated. Last week, we heard commentary about obstruction and raised barriers in the industry to being part of the public transport network. I have three questions. First, why did the Department feel the need to change the determination process, and at what level was that decision taken?

Ms Robinson: The determination process was changed following a judicial review application. As part of that judicial review, it was stated that there was insufficient analysis and consideration. In order to try to ensure that that did not happen going forward, a determination panel was introduced. As I stated, that makes the process more robust and ensures that we have three people making the decision. I have been on only one determination panel so far, but those three people meet, as far as possible, in a room, and that allows a really good flow of information, so that all the evidence that is provided can be discussed. The evidence of specific interests or the advice from specialists, for example, the economists and the transport planners, can be taken into consideration. A fairly good and robust consideration can be had around that. Moving forward, that is a better and more transparent process than having an individual make those decisions. I am not in any way undermining Stuart — previously, it was his role to make those determinations — but having three people make them through the three-person panel, as opposed to having one person make them, will be a more robust process. The process changes were recommended by the Department but were approved at permanent secretary level.

8 Mr Boylan: The industry says that there are eight specific guidelines that essentially turn the industry on its head and present barriers. You said that you will consult the industry. What is the scope for looking at those guidelines and working with the industry to try to open that up a bit to make it more accessible for the industry?

Ms Robinson: I want to break this down into three pieces. There are parts of the guidelines that are legislative-based. The only way that we can change those is by putting through an amendment to the 2011 Act. For me, we would need a very good evidence base to start to go down that process. There are parts of the process that have been approved at permanent secretary and ministerial level, and, while they are still open for discussion, again, I will want a fairly robust consideration around what any changes in relation to that might be. At the moment, I am still of the view that the changes that were made as part of that process improve the system, albeit that there is a bigger time frame. Within the guidelines, there are pieces that are probably open to a bit more discussion. There is still scope there. There are a couple of things that were not included in the draft guidelines in March, and that is because they are still with the Department for consideration. Those are around station access and journey planner. We are actively working on those two issues, and we will continue to engage with the industry going forward to see how best we can position that.

Mr Boylan: You may or may not be able to respond to my final point. The Hannon case is well rehearsed, and we have had a number of briefings on it. You said that it did not supply sufficient evidence, and it challenged that. Would you like to comment on exactly what evidence it was supposed to provide or to make any commentary around that?

Ms Robinson: I will plead on this one. Hannon was informed on 30 March of the decision. That was in relation to six applications, and I assume that it is one of those that you refer to.

Mr Boylan: Yes.

Ms Robinson: The decision was made in line with the legislation on which all permit applications are based. We are still within the time frame for a judicial review against those applications, and I think that that time frame extends to 30 June. On that basis, I do not think that it is appropriate for me to enter into a conversation at this time.

Mr Boylan: I appreciate that, but I had to raise that point with you.

Finally, Jackie, the industry feels that the Department keeps moving the goalposts, so we need to ensure that the consultations that start from now will continue and, as I said, make it more accessible for the industry and welcome the operators into the transport industry. Thank you very much for your answers.

Ms Robinson: Thank you, Mr Boylan.

Ms Anderson: Jackie, I appreciate what you said this morning about valuing the industry. However, the private bus and coach operators do not feel valued. They feel that they face obstacles in the Department. For instance, when they saw the documents given to the Minister about the change in the permit process, the reps in the sector described it as wholly unfair, because it did not mention their opposition, which was clearly expressed to the Department. Therefore, Jackie, you have to take on board the fact that they do not feel valued; they feel ignored. While they probably appreciate your comments, they do not want tea and sympathy. The question that they need answered is, "If the Department values consultation with the sector, why does it not reflect the sector's clearly expressed views, when the documentation was given to the Minister about changing the permit process?".

Ms Robinson: Thanks for that question. My understanding is that that submission to the Minister was based on the best evidence. It was before my time in this post, so I do not want to second-guess the quality of it. We will continue to look at it.

It is important that, rather than looking back, we look forward. As I said, I want to work with the industry in a co-production-type way. We should start to look at that and at how we start to build relationships. I totally understand where you are coming from. I understand the industry's perspective on where the relationship is at the moment. All I can say is that I will work very hard to improve that to let us get up the hill.

9 Ms Anderson: I recommend then, Jackie, that you do not start where someone else left off, with this notion of how you define "best evidence". Best evidence is not co-design, and co-design is what we hear from Executive Ministers about how they will take things forward. You cannot ignore what someone says to you. The industry says that to you because it is not regarded as best evidence. I appreciate what you say: you want to have a working relationship with the industry. So do we, because it is not good for the public to hear that a sector that is valued by us all and appreciated by many, if not all, the customers who use it does not feel that it has a good relationship with the Department. Good luck going forward, and hopefully we will not have to hear many more complaints from the sector as a result of your intervention.

May I ask you about the Translink journey planner? In your briefing, you stated that it was no longer viable due to increased levels of information. Surely it is not too complex to arrange it so that the public are aware of the extent of the available service. I talk primarily about our experience of the Derry Airporter in my constituency. It is a valued service, not just in the city but across the north-west. It has been trying to get on the journey planner for years, and it finds that very frustrating, as do we, the customers who use that service.

Ms Robinson: The journey planner was opened up to operators in, I think, 2012 on a pilot basis. At that stage, only one operator took up the offer, and it was included on the journey planner. The journey planner has changed in the intervening period, and the changes in technology over the last nine years have been fairly significant. How we access information has changed. The information in the journey planner needs to be quite detailed. There were some changes to the system, as a result of which the information of the operator who had been on it from 2012 was missed. The level of detail that is currently required was not provided by the operator to Translink. I am aware that Translink is engaging actively on this. As of this week, it is engaging with that operator, and the operator will come back on to the journey planner when it has sorted its post-COVID scheduling.

Airporter is a slightly different issue, because it is not a public transport, so it operates from a place to an airport, and you have to book it in advance. In order to get around that, Translink is working with Airporter, and it is proposing to put a link on the journey planner. The journey planner will not reflect Airporter journeys, but it will give a link that will take you to the Airporter's website, where people will be able to pick up its journey times and make a booking.

One thing that I want to think about going forward is what is best — I keep going back to this — for our passengers and the people using that service. We should have something that is fairly joined up. Translink is providing services and operating the journey planner. When it does that, there are potential data protection issues. I am going to get to a stage at which I do not know what I am talking about, but do you know when you try to buy a new pair of shoes online and, all of a sudden, you get all these ads on your system? That is because people can access information about your journey and what you have looked at. It is the same with the journey planner, so Translink has access to the number of clicks and what journeys people have looked for. Is it appropriate for Translink to have access to that information before private operators? We need to bottom that out. We need to think about how best to go forward with it. We are actively considering that with Translink.

Ms Anderson: I am glad to hear that Translink is engaging with the Derry Airporter on that. I appreciate the importance of data protection, but, as a passenger, I know that you do not want to go to one link and then another link to access information, so anything that can be done to join that up would be appreciated, particularly by my constituents who need the Airporter to get to the airports in Belfast, because no other service is doing that.

I am not sure whether you and your colleagues in other divisions in the Department are giving the issue of post-COVID recovery any attention. For instance, a member referenced the taxi industry and the fact that many taxi drivers have left the industry and said that they do not want the same thing to happen to private bus and coach operators. Has any consideration been given to a temporary postponement of the entry test for taxi drivers to get them back into the industry, which would be similar to what it was like in 2016 before the entry test came into existence? It would only be about trying to assist the industry as part of the post-COVID recovery, given that there is such a lack of taxi drivers now. It can take three to six months to do the theory test, so a temporary postponement would help them to deal with the pressures that they are currently under.

Ms Robinson: To be perfectly frank, I have no knowledge of that at all, so I am reluctant to try to answer it. We will maybe send something back to the Committee on that.

10 Ms Anderson: OK. That would be good. Thank you, Jackie.

The Chairperson (Miss McIlveen): We are running short of time.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Jackie. A lot of my questions have been answered. The briefing that you provided for this Committee meeting is very informative, so I appreciate that. I do, however, have to echo the comments from some members about the frustration expressed last week by the operators; no doubt, you saw the Hansard report of the proceedings. It is fair to say that people feel as though they are not operating on a level playing field and getting a fair crack of the whip. That affects them commercially in the environment that they are in. It is also an issue of fairness.

I am conscious of time, so I have just two questions, the first of which is on the shared facilities regulations. Are there any plans or timescales for the introduction of those? I have another issue for AOB, if I get a chance, Chair. What are the timescales for engagement and consultation on the 30- minute rule? A range of issues were discussed last week, including the 30-minute rule and, particularly, the operation of express coach services. Those operators feel that that is one of the key impediments to getting a fair chance to operate. Those are my two issues.

Ms Robinson: I will take the last one first. I am very conscious of the fact that I am the person who is holding up the issue of the 30-minute rule. Work has been done, and it is sitting on my desk. I am hopeful that, within the next four to six weeks, we will be in a position to try to bottom that out with the industry. Please do not hold me to that four to six weeks if it slips to seven, but it is that sort of time frame rather than the autumn, if that is helpful.

Mr Muir: What about shared facilities?

Ms Robinson: Shared facilities is really about station access and where operators share facilities with Translink. There have been two requests for shared facility access, as far as I am aware. One of the services that were requested has not commenced yet, and Translink allowed the other one. The PSA between the Department and Translink states that Translink will look at requests for third-party access in good faith. That is our underlying principle in that regard. In doing so, however, it has to look at health and safety and safe operating practices. I am sure that you agree that that is pretty fundamental to any public transport station. We are working on the new PSA with Translink. We will look at the approach to station access and whether that can be extended. I have been talking to Translink about the new transport hub. The current bus station at Great Victoria Street has, I think, 18 parking bays. The new one will have 26, which will, obviously, present opportunities for further development and, potentially, private operators. It is something to look at.

You asked specifically about the shared services regulations. We can, under the 2011 Act, bring in regulations to require that to be done. The question is whether that would make any difference, because there will still be the fundamental need to look at the operating and the health and safety issues. It is something that we could do. It was ready to go in the last mandate, before the Assembly stopped in 2017. The legislative focus more recently in this mandate has been around Brexit and trying to make sure that our legislative programme is robust. It was not taken through. We could look at it in the future. I am more inclined to think about how we could do that in a more collaborative way, with Translink and the operators being able to collaborate and have a fairly good relationship. I have discussed that with Translink, and that is probably where I would prefer to go in the short term.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Jackie. As I said, a lot my questions have already been asked. This is a very important issue. I do not want to overlook the import of it, but I am also aware of time; people are being thrown out of the Room in Parliament Buildings. Thank you for your answers. This is an important issue.

Ms Robinson: Agreed.

Mr Beggs: I want to go back to the journey planner. The briefing states that people were not included because they did not provide:

"the increased level of information and data".

Bear in mind that this is a public service; it is paid for by the public. Almost £1 million has been spent on developing the website, plus all the additional money prior to that. What information has been

11 missed, other than the time of the bus service and where it is arriving? What additional information is needed? Are barriers being put up?

Ms Robinson: No, I genuinely do not think that barriers are being put up. I talked earlier about how Translink is facilitating the operator that was previously included to get it back on board. At the moment, my understanding is that it is just waiting for that operator to finalise its post-COVID scheduling, and, when that is done, it will be back on board.

Airporter is slightly different, because it is not a passenger service. You have to pre-book Airporter. You cannot just rock up at a stop and know that the bus will stop for you, which is what the journey planner is all about. That needs to be taken through slightly differently, but Translink is trying to facilitate that. Those are the only two requests for access to the journey planner that I am aware of, but, going forward, I want to think about — it goes back to this question— what is the best thing to do for our passengers? Is the journey planner the right way to do it? However, at the moment, Translink runs the system as an operator. It operates the system, but it is also a public transport operator.

Mr Beggs: You said that the original pilot applicant was removed because an increased level of information was required for the journey planner. Can you come back to the Committee and tell us what the additional information was? I fail to understand that.

Ms Robinson: My understanding is that it was about a systems update. The system was updated, and the information that was held was insufficient. At the beginning, nobody realised that that operator had been dropped off, and, once that happened, the request for the increased information was made to try to get the operator back on board.

Mr Beggs: I am disappointed, because I got an answer to a recent question to the Minister, and there was no reference to a failure in a system update or the journey planner system. It was almost implying that there was a lack of information from the applicant. It is very disappointing that [Inaudible owing to poor sound quality] the Minister.

Ms Robinson: I will come back and clarify that, because it is a difficult one and it is an IT system. My IT knowledge is not that up to date, but I will come back and clarify that for you.

Mr Beggs: OK. Other members spoke about access to public bus stations. Again, that is a service for the public, which is paid for by the public. There certainly is a perception that private coach operators must drop their passengers off in the street, even at quiet times when there is no health and safety risk. How will you ensure that that perception does not continue?

Ms Robinson: I will continue to work with Translink on that. If we feel that there is that perception, maybe looking at the shared facilities regulations is the way to go. I will look at that going forward. I will discuss that with operators.

Mr Beggs: In relation to the 30-minute rule, concern was expressed to us about how purchasing a significant coach was a long-term investment. The permit is only for three years. The operators' understanding is that they apply for the permit but could lose it after those three years, particularly if Translink has introduced new services in the meantime. In some instances, when applications come in and before those determinations are made, Translink introduces new services, almost to create a difficulty for the applicants' services. How do we ensure that there is innovation, that the entrepreneurial spirit that the private sector brings in responding to the market and to customers' needs continues and that they are not pushed out when Translink perhaps sees competition and moves in?

Ms Robinson: Again, it goes back to one of the earlier questions. I feel that the incumbent operator has an advantage when it comes to renewal. The three-year renewal period is set in legislation. There is very little that we can do about that in the short term, short of amending the primary legislation. When a renewal application comes in, it does not go to a determination panel. The information needs to be considered, and it still goes out to the consultees, as required by the legislation, and the decision is made by the head of the branch. I am trying to think of an example that is not covered. In most cases, if service provision is sufficient and the passenger numbers are sufficient for the operator to want a renewal, I can see very few issues with that renewal being allowed, unless other issues came to light.

12 I already talked about the PSA with Translink. You talked about what may or may not happen with Translink introducing new services, but I cannot start to comment on that unless I get specifics. We have provision to make sure that Translink operates services only within the PSA and that PSA routes are extended only with the approval of the Department.

Mr Beggs: You introduced a new process for the initial application. Given that individuals have been through the detailed initial process and have obviously proven and developed their service, would you not consider introducing a new process for renewal? Why have we made such a bureaucratic service for what you say, unless they do not provide the level of service that one would expect, should be virtually automatic? Why do you not have a different service for renewal?

Ms Robinson: At the moment, things are still required for a renewal application. That includes the consultation stage. If we get a renewal application, we must go out to consultees. The list of consultees is the same as that for new applications. That is set in legislation, so we can do nothing about it, short of changing the legislation.

There are good reasons to continue to go out to consultation. For example, we do one of our consultations with the PSNI. If it identifies any issues with that service, it is only fair that the application and renewal process is alerted about that. It is a more streamlined system, and we will endeavour to be sure of that within the guidelines. Stuart and I have been having a conversation about what the guidelines will look like going forward. We are thinking about changing them to put them into three sections. One section will be a renewal section and one will be a first application system. There will then be a separate section where people request a slight amendment to their permit. That will not be a new application, but it might be a slight change of time or whatever. We will set that out very clearly so that it is open and transparent to everybody.

Mr Beggs: I hope that it will be bureaucracy lite.

Mrs D Kelly: If I missed the plaudits, I want to wish you well in your new post. I have enjoyed working with you in your current role as Chair of the Infrastructure Committee. I look forward to seeing you in my constituency. That will be sooner rather than later, I hope.

The briefing paper and the answers from the Department have been very helpful. I will not repeat the questions that other members asked. In your preamble, Jackie, you said that you want the private sector to fill the gaps in the network, but I have to agree with other members, particularly Roy and Martina, who said that that is not how the operators express themselves as being valued. We value the provision of transport by the public sector. What will the terms of reference be for the upcoming PSA review? What will the lessons learned be from over the last x number of years? If you consult them, how will you consult the private sector and service users on the delivery of that? How do you set our standards for the provision of public-sector transport networks against those of other jurisdictions?

Ms Robinson: As I said, the PSA is up for renewal this year. The team is working very hard with Translink to look at that. That is covered in regulation 1370, and we need to make sure that that regulation is applied. The PSA will give Translink exclusive rights to deliver services that are set out in the PSA as per the timetable. It does not have exclusive rights to the routes themselves. We are in a different situation here than in other jurisdictions across these islands. It is different here compared with, for example, the National Transport Authority in Ireland and the service provision in GB. We will look to see what we can learn from best practice in that area, but it is different, and they do not have PSAs with the operators in the same way that we do. It is a question of balance.

In information that the Department has very recently published, we are looking to make sure that passenger needs are fully met, and that includes in relation to the likes of demand-responsive services. Going forward, with our transport plans as well, we will be looking to do that and encourage it. We will continue to encourage our private operators to help us to deliver on making sure that all passengers and all citizens across Northern Ireland have access to public transport, because that is the way to go. Eventually, this comes back to our responsibilities on climate change and reducing the use of cars.

Mrs D Kelly: Will there be a cost-benefit analysis on that that will look at comparable jurisdictions and the management costs and determine whether those are value for money?

13 Ms Robinson: That would be a fairly wide review. The PSA will look at value for money and efficiency savings, and, as part of that, we will benchmark Translink against other operators that are as comparable as we can find. That work will be done.

Mrs D Kelly: Chair, the Committee will probably come back to this at a further point.

The Chairperson (Miss McIlveen): Thank you both for your time this morning. We ran over time considerably. We are confident that the Committee will return to the issue. Thank you, Jackie and Stuart.

14