Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the delegation from Bus Éireann. As Deputy Coffey has said, in reference to a previous speaker, nobody in this committee has a monopoly in terms of concern or in terms of allegations made or which are in the public arena. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous to the committee and to the member who made it. Discussions that are held in private should be private but, obviously, they are not. At no stage in private discussions did any one person monopolise their concerns in respect of allegations. I want that put on the record. I was not present at any meeting where only one person expressed concerns but I was present at a meeting where the majority expressed a view that the legal opinion given to the committee was the appropriate course of action.

In page 5 of his presentation, Mr. Nolan said that the cost of the Bus Éireann administered element of the school transport scheme to the Department of Education and Skills in 2008 was €162 million. He also said that more than €30 million has been saved by Bus Éireann. However, one of the contributors said the scheme did not make a profit. Given that Bus Éireann saved €30 million in conjunction with the Department of Education and Skills and made 2,000 service improvements, what was Bus Éireann doing prior to that time if it could not make those savings? We had to wait for the collapse of the economy before those savings were made. What was going on in the company up to then, given that it was operating the service at a cost of €30 million in excess of that at which it could operate post the collapse of the economy?

Further on in his presentation, Mr. Nolan said that in 1999 Bus Éireann experienced difficulty in attracting applications from private operators and "these had to be found through canvassing of existing contractors." What exactly does he mean by that? What processes were engaged in for canvassing of contractors? Did it take the form of telephoning people or going out and meeting people and, if so, were terms and conditions offered that may have been more amenable than those offered up to then? Were the terms and conditions offered better than those already in place and were enhancements given?