Mr. Fred Barry:

Deputy Munster asked a number of detailed questions. Because I am not actually in the job yet I do not have detailed answers for her on those issues. Where I do not have a detailed response I will get back to the Deputy on it. I shall comment generally on her questions. Providing disability access in public transport is absolutely essential. If there are areas where there is a better disability service provided - such as on the Enterprise - than on other trains then we should certainly examine what can be done to move to the higher standard on those trains.

I am surprised to hear there are coaches being licensed that do not have to comply with the regulations. Because it is news to me I cannot give Deputy Munster a response on that. I expect that, if we are not at the point where all coaches are required to comply with disability access, we are moving in that direction. I would expect that to be the case.

Whether or not a service is to be privatised is a matter for government policy rather than NTA policy. That is a strategic policy position. I am not aware of any. In the interviews I went through, before arriving at this position, nobody raised the question of privatisation with me. That matter is for the Government. I have no particular agenda in that area.

With regard to outsourcing, I believe that competition is very healthy. I spent most of my working life in the private sector, competing for work. That made us more efficient and better at the job. Not everything is suitable for outsourcing but when it is done in the right place I believe it is okay.

Deputy Munster asked also about plans to go outside the 10% level of outsourcing. I am not aware of the plans but again because I am coming in to the job there may be plans about which I am not familiar. As we sit here at the moment I am not aware of anything beyond that.

I am aware that Go-Ahead was awarded the contract for 10% of the bus routes but I do not know the details of the Go-Ahead contract. I do not have the details of past contracts awarded by the NTA. I assume that Go-Ahead won because it met the most economically advantageous tender, MEAT, criteria. I believe we are all aware that under the EU rules for public tenders, the most economically advantageous tender has to govern. Deputy Munster asked why it was Go-Ahead rather than the national carrier. When it is a competitive situation, no matter how much one might want to give it to one party or a national carrier, under the current procurement laws that is not allowed. That is the law as we have it. This does not give the Deputy any details on the contract, but I do not have any details on the contract.