Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms Graham and Mr. Murphy and thank them for coming before the committee today. It will be helpful in trying to establish the impact of the plans for restructuring.

I have had an opportunity to review the plans for restructuring the rural transport programme. The main document is Strengthening Connections in Rural Ireland. In my reading of the document, however, the proposals will weaken the connections which exist. It is clear that this has been brought about by a ministerial decision to reduce the cost of delivery of the service. We all accept that all State services over the past number of years have had to re-examine how they do their business and consider restructuring. It is a falsehood to suggest that the service will be enhanced or strengthened by reducing the number of companies in the manner in which it is intended and reducing the money available. I fail to see how one can do that in a manner that will strengthen the service that exists.

I am reasonably familiar with the rural transport system. I come from Clare, and East Clare Accessible Transport, ECAT, as it started out, was one of the pioneers in developing a rural transport programme. For that reason I am deeply concerned, because I know the negative impact decisions can have.

The delegation has rightly identified the target groups - namely, those who live in isolation, particularly those who are infirm, old or have a disability, and the young cohort of teenagers and young adults who do not have access to private transport. They have benefited hugely from the scheme.

The Minister seems to have based much of the plan on the value for money review and the notion that 22% of the total group expenditure in 2009 was spent on administration. That would be of concern to all of us. However, if one examines what the administration comprises, many groups, as identified in the document, carry out procurement for a fleet of buses. That involves an administrative function. That will still need to be done in a new setting.

In many cases the administration costs can be attributed to the work involved in raising other finances and resources, which is often done through some of the volunteers, to purchase vehicles. Much of that work is done through charitable sources. Without that level of administration and the added benefit received from being able to fund-raise to purchase buses, the cost to the State would be a lot more in the long run.

I have some specific questions. In regard to the door-to-door service provided for many people, particularly those who are infirm, have mobility issues and are elderly, does the delegation intend to ensure they will be retained at the current level? I do not refer to how internal administration might be managed. On value for money and reviews of cost, how has the cost structure of the NTA changed over the past three years? What are its annual running costs now compared to three years ago?