I call Deputies who tabled questions to the Minister for Public Enterprise in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office.
Private Notice Questions. - CIE Chairman's Resignation.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if she will make a full statement on the circumstances surrounding the resignation of the chairman of CIE; if she will accept responsibility for this situation in view of a number of her decisions, such as the appointment of a separate human resources manager in CIE and her intervention in the reorganisation of the bus service within weeks of her appointment in summer 1997; and the plans, if any, she has to appoint an executive chairman to replace him.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if she will make a statement on the sudden resignation from office of the chairman of CIE, Mr. Brian Joyce; if she will respond to the allegations made by the chairman in his letter of resignation regarding interference by her in the day to day running of the company; the steps she intends to take to deal with further damage to morale in the CIE group likely to arise from the resignation of Mr. Joyce; the procedures she intends to use for the appointment of a replacement for Mr. Joyce; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if, in view of the crisis in CIE as evidenced by the resignation of its chairman, she will urgently address the need for a clear and unambiguous framework for the future of CIE.
(Dublin West) asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if she will make a statement on the resignation of the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann, Mr. Brian Joyce.
I thank Members for tabling the questions.
I will begin, as I did this morning, by expressing my sincere regret at the decision of Brian Joyce to resign as chairman of CIE. He has been an effective chairman with a clear understanding of the issues facing CIE. In my personal dealings with him, I have always found him to be courteous, professional and very business like. I am genuinely sorry he has chosen to resign so close to the end of his term of office and I wish him well for the future.
I first heard of Mr. Joyce's decision to resign on the 7 o'clock news on RTE radio this morning. I saw his resignation letter for the first time when I arrived at my office this morning. The Secretary General of my Department was in contact with Mr. Joyce yesterday to arrange a meeting between him, the Secretary General and me at 8 o'clock this morning to discuss the railway safety audit carried out by the IRMS. I had also invited Mr. Gerry Duggan, chairman of the CIE safety committee and a board member, to attend that meeting but, unfortunately, he is out of the country on business. Given that we were due to meet this morning, Members will understand my surprise on hearing he had resigned.
The matter was on the Cabinet agenda since last week. Every Cabinet Minister had a copy of the safety report despite what was said previously but we will go into that later. I have given every Member of the House a copy of that report as well.
I will now address a number of matters raised in Mr. Joyce's letter of resignation. I am sorry he has decided to resign at a time when CIE can look forward to the revitalisation of public transport. For many years and, under successive Governments, CIE has had to live with the consequences of under-investment in public transport. This Government was the first to recognise the importance of public transport to the economy.
In the past few months, I have succeeded in obtaining Government agreement to a £2.2 billion capital programme for public transport, the details of which are set out in the national development plan. Much of that investment strategy derives from the results of investment reviews carried out by CIE.
A theme running through Mr. Joyce's resignation letter and his earlier speech a year and a half ago to the Chartered Institute of Transport is the need for the company to have the freedom to get on and do its job free from ministerial interference. I have no argument with Mr. Joyce on that, but I draw a distinction between interference and democratic stewardship. CIE is a State owned company. This year it will receive £350 million from the Exchequer. I am accountable to the Oireachtas in relation to CIE and the expenditure of State funds. I do not interfere in the day to day running of the company. However, I have a responsibility to ensure the company pursues policies that are aligned with the interests of shareholders who, in this case, are Irish taxpayers.
The Opposition cannot have it every way. Two weeks ago it criticised me for not intervening in the Dublin Bus dispute and now it is saying I intervened, which I did not – I want to make it clear that I did not intervene in the recent Dublin Bus dispute. While I naturally kept in contact with the parties to brief myself on developments, I took great care to allow the State's industrial relations machinery to get on with the job. This was confirmed by Peter Bunting, general secretary of the NBRU on RTE's "Morning Ireland" this morning. Fair dues to him for his Northern honesty and telling the truth straight as it was in that case. It was ICTU which intervened in the dispute and this led to agreement on a new framework for negotiations under the auspices of the LRC and a subsequent suspension of the threatened strike action.
The chairman's letter mentioned fares and public service contracts. I was the first Minister since 1991 to seek Government approval of an across the board fares increase for all the CIE companies. Again I was harangued in the Dáil for even looking for it. The company sought an increase of about 10%. I recommended a 5% increase to Cabinet, having taken account of the interests of the company and public transport users. I was criticised by the Opposition for approving any increase. The former CIE chairman, at a very friendly meeting two or three months ago, put forward the proposal that I should give permission to the board to index CPI increases yearly to the fares structure at CIE. I told him I was prepared to consider some form of indexed fares increases linked to public service contracts.
Negotiations on a public service contract for Dublin Bus were concluded in the autumn and, in line with the commitments I had given to CIE management and the unions, I put proposals to Government in November for the implementation of the contract. The Attorney General advised that I did not have the legal powers under the Transport Acts to enter into such a binding multi-annual contract with CIE. That issue is now being considered as part of my Department's review of the Road Transport Act, 1932, which the Government decided last November should be completed as a matter of urgency.
The former chairman also referred to concerns about Luas, particularly that the cost of the project might divert resources from other public transport projects. Those concerns were addressed in the national development plan, which sets out clear financial envelopes for a range of public transport projects. Resources have been separately allocated to mainline rail, suburban rail, urban public transport and regional bus services as well as Luas.
The former chairman also said that he had only heard about the PPP operation of Luas from the public press. The facts are that the Government decided in 1998 that Luas should be one of a number of pilot public private partnerships. I subsequently commissioned consultants, Andersen Consultants, to advise me on an appropriate PPP approach to Luas. That report was sent formally to CIE for its comments. It gave a detailed written response, which my Department subsequently discussed with it. I will put specific proposals for a Luas public private partnership to Government shortly, having considered the views of CIE and others who replied when we asked for their views. I will then communicate the Government decision to CIE.
The appointment of the chairman of CIE is a statutory function of the Government under section 6 of the Transport Act, 1950. I will engage in consultations with my Cabinet colleagues with a view to the early appointment of a new chairperson.
I want to ask the Minister a specific question. This morning in her radio interview she clearly inferred the reason for Mr. Joyce's resignation was that he would not face the music in relation to rail safety deficiencies. In view of the fact that she denied Mr. Joyce a copy of the rail safety report, that CIE only got that report at 11 o'clock this morning and that this is utterly untrue, will she now apologise to Mr. Joyce for making that inference as to the reason for his resignation when that is an entirely diversionary tactic in terms of the real reason he resigned?
I regret very much that Deputy Yates is calling safety a diversionary tactic.
The Minister should not divert from the question.
She should not be ridiculous.
Let me finish.
Let the Minister reply without interruption.
I am entitled to free speech.
That is not the issue though.
Deputy Yates called this a diversionary tactic and less than a year ago he was willing to confront me with the fact that rail safety, with which I am obsessed, was the most important issue that could confront anyone in this land.
Stick to the issue of the day.
Deputy Stagg, I wish to say my piece.
The Minister should stick to the issue of the day.
It is the issue.
I rule against interruptions by Deputies and I ask the Minister to address the Chair.
Will the Minister apologise?
Does the Minister think he was not prepared to face the music?
The Minister is in possession. Deputies should allow her to reply.
Was he willing to face the music?
There will be an opportunity for Members to raise other supplementary questions.
We will deal with the snipers afterwards.
Let us have order during this Question Time. The Minister is in possession.
The Minister is afraid to face the music – that is what is wrong. She got the Minister, Deputy Ahern, in to help her.
I ask Deputies to desist from interrupting.
The train is derailed.
Deputies must desist. Let us hear the Minister without interruption.
I will try to face the Chair so that I will not have to look at anybody else.
The Chair is smiling.
The Ceann Comhairle will turn to stone.
It is a complete untruth that CIE did not know of the safety report. Exactly one week ago the 11 new identified unreasonable risks were conveyed to the top management of the rail infrastructure, safety and general management in Iarnód Éireann. The four of them came to see me at lunchtime today, headed by Joe Meagher, and they confirmed they had received—
What has that to do with the question?
—the results of the unreasonable risk survey from the Department. Clearly I cannot be accountable for why one arm of Iarnód Éireann did not convey that to another arm of it. That is the truth of that matter. Rather than perpetuate untruths – I know we cannot use the word "lie" here – I want to put that one to bed.
I cannot understand why Brian Joyce, a very proper, admirable man, allowed himself, maybe, to be so advised – I do not know if that is the case – that he made an arrangement yesterday with the Secretary General of the Department, which was courteously made by both sides. The arrangement was that he would meet me at 8 o'clock this morning. The agenda was to be rail safety. The matter was to go direct to Cabinet and from Cabinet to publication, all of which has happened. I do not understand why he did not come in to me and say, "I want to resign." To be truthful, I do not blame him for wanting to resign, but that is another matter. I went to my apartment last night in the belief that I was meeting him at 8 o'clock this morning and then I turned on the radio this morning and heard the 7 o'clock news.
A Cheann Comhairle—
I will return to the Deputy. I call Deputy Stagg.
Does the Minister agree that mindless, stupid remarks to seek to cause a diversion away from the issue before this House are not appropriate to this serious situation? Given the meddling and incompetence of the Minister in her handling of this and other semi-State authorities, will she tell the House how it came to pass that a letter was delivered by hand to her Department sometime yesterday afternoon and that she did not get it until whatever time she arrived in her Department this morning? Will she accept that when a third chairperson of a commercial semi-State company feels compelled to resign, arising from her meddling, serious questions have to be asked about the management of her portfolio that will not be clouded or brushed over by giggles or making light of the matter? We are fed up with the Minister making light of these issues, getting a laugh and diverting from the real issues.
In the circumstances, I find the Deputy's remarks to be mindless, stupid and remarkable. That is what I make of them.
That is what we have been getting from the Minister for a long time and we are fed up with it.
Please allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
Mindless and stupid. We have ascertained from the person on duty in the Department that the letter was handed to him at 7.30 p.m. yesterday evening. It was addressed to me and clearly he does not open letters addressed to me. Why should he? I was in my Department at 7.30 this morning and I got the letter.
One would think somebody would have given the Minister a copy of The Irish Times before that.
Will the Minister agree that the resignation of the chairman of CIE and his stated reasons for resigning are really symptoms of much deeper and more fundamental problems within CIE and in its relationship with Government? Will the Minister agree that the real reason for this crisis is neglect and under-investment, and that the failure of the Government to tackle the real issue of competition within CIE is at the root of this problem? The Minister has made many speeches and press statements about competition, privatisation, the public service and public private partnership, but effectively there have been no decisions.
A question please, Deputy.
Will the Minister agree that this issue is so important to the economy, our competitiveness and the travelling public that it is time for the Government to appoint a Minister with sole responsibility for traffic and transport?
I share Deputy Mitchell's point of view that CIE is a troubled company. It has a troubled past to which it insists on reverting. For the past two weeks we have had replays and revisions of the 1995 carry-on within CIE. I believe there are several more episodes planned.
The Minister should not bad-mouth CIE. She has a history of doing so to the detriment of the company.
Please allow the Minister to answer without interruption, Deputy.
I agree with Deputy Mitchell that there is a malaise in CIE and that it has a troubled past. I would ask the company to embrace with vigour and enthusiasm the capital programme before it. The capital programme was expressed to me in very good terms when the four executives of Iarnród Éireann came to see me.
Deputy Mitchell raised the clear need for competition and I agree with her. We have undertaken a review of the 1932 Act. That review will form part of the infrastructural committee and within that the public service contracts will be addressed. Let us cast our minds back briefly to 1995. Mr. Dermot O'Leary resigned in April 1995. Mr. Eamon Walsh was appointed in April 1995. In May 1995, Mr. Michael McDonnell was appointed. I looked up the press release by the then Government and they were described in 1995 as "the dream team". In November 1995, Mr. Brian Joyce was appointed as chairman and almost five years later he resigned. Let us cast our minds back to April 1995 when there were several resignations. It is interesting to look back on those periods.
The train is a long time gone now. It left the station long ago.
(Dublin West): Has the problem arisen from the fact that the Minister was content to let matters trundle along in CIE while workers there, and in particular in Dublin Bus which was referred to in the chairman's resignation letter, were forced to bend to the yoke of disgracefully low pay, disgraceful conditions and unsocial hours? The problem arose when Dublin Bus workers cried halt and said, “We will take no more of having to subsidise public transport”.
A question, please, Deputy.
(Dublin West): Is it true that the Minister then panicked and put pressure on CIE management to do something in a hurry? Will the Minister agree that CIE management stands as indicted as herself because it tolerated gross abuse of the workforce in the form of exploitation of wages and conditions? When the Minister refers to democratic stewardship, does she agree that in supposedly stewarding CIE democratically, she has failed dismally in allowing this situation to continue? Since she failed to put in place proper conditions for the workers, she is now reaping the rewards of that failure.
I understand Deputy Higgins's concern but I am not able to deal with all his points in sequence. To look at one point, however, in 1996 the bus subsidy, which was cut back, was £3.6 million. Last year it was £13.2 million.
(Dublin West): What was it in 1987?
That is almost four times the 1996 figure. I do not understand the Deputy's sequence of questions concerning the workers because I did not interfere. The Deputy is saying I panicked but I did not. Deputy Yates is saying that I should not have intervened, although two weeks ago he told the House that I should have done so.
Ah, come on.
It is all a bit of a mish-mash.
We are all wrong.
I very much regret that the Minister will not apologise to Mr. Joyce for inferring that he resigned over safety issues. If she is not prepared to do that, the House must see it for what it is. May I ask the Minister about another point arising from her interview this morning? She said she had a policy of non-interference in CIE's day to day issues. How, therefore, can she explain the unprecedented appointment of Mr. John Behan as human resource manager, who is not to report to the chairman, board or chief executive of CIE, but to her personally?
Yes.
Second, how can she say that she does not interfere when she intervened in July 1997 in relation to the Imp buses issue which paralysed Bus Éireann and is still unresolved two and a half years later? Is it the Minister's agenda not just to get rid of the chairman of CIE but also to get rid of the chief executive and to appoint a new executive chairman, and that she has a candidate in mind for that post?
As regards the third point, Deputy Yates, in his usual clap-trap way, went on RTE at lunchtime and said that I was waiting to appoint – in his words – a "crony" of mine called Padraic White.
Is the Minister saying he is not?
That was disgraceful behaviour. I have no such intention, wish or aspiration. The idea that somebody can come on national public radio and seek to denigrate, in a scattergun fashion, as Deputy Yates did, an esteemed public servant, is dreadful. I have no intention of appointing the person referred to, who is a person of very high calibre. One would wish to have his valued expertise in a public company. I feel very strongly about the attack that was made on him by Deputy Yates. It is another untruth which he has put out as appertaining to be the truth.
The Minister appointed Mr. Behan.
I am talking about a man called Padraic White, who the Deputy denigrated today on the radio.
The Deputy should apologise.
Will the Minister appoint an executive chairman, yes or no?
Excuse me. Will the Deputy apologise for that?
Allow the Minister to reply, Deputy Yates.
I have asked the Minister a question and she rattles on in a different direction. Will the Minister appoint an executive chairman and why did she meddle with the appointment of a human resource manager in the handling of a national dispute? It is a very simple question.
The Deputy asked me about Padraic White and I have answered him.
I did not.
Yes, he did.
I would like the person who submitted the question to have the opportunity to ask another supplementary question.
I asked if the Minister was going to appoint an executive chairman.
The Minister is entitled to respond without interruption.
No, and I am not going to appoint an executive chairman. Perhaps it would be a good idea, but I do not have any immediate plans.
The Minister should address her remarks to the Chair.
The third question put to me was about John Behan. The chairman's office rang me the day the Government approved that and asked me – we have a record of the telephone call, two years and eight months ago – if we would agree that it should be CIE that should appoint him. I said "yes". It was the chairman's wish.
Reported to the Minister.
Did the Minister receive a letter from Mr. Joyce some time ago warning that the Luas project would end up costing £1 billion, which is four to five times the original estimate? This arises from the Minister's insistence on putting in the only underground light rail system in the world. Was the Minister or any person in her Department responsible for briefings which resulted in newspaper articles last Friday claiming Mr. Joyce was opposed to the Luas project? Was she or her spin doctors responsible for that?
A freedom of information request was made by an esteemed Sunday newspaper.
I am talking about the spin.
We gave the information, as we are obliged to do under the Freedom of Information Act, which related to copies of correspondence. I wondered how they knew about copies of correspondence, but they did. Copies of correspondence relating to Mr. Joyce's letter to me were sought and the Department, in fulfilling its freedom of information responsibilities, gave those copies out. That was for the month of May. Interestingly, after that, Mr. Joyce, the head of the finance committee on the board and I had a meal together – Mr. Joyce invited me – in a hotel near here when the Dáil was sitting, so it was before the middle of July.
Give us the menu.
I will. During the meal, I said to him that we hoped to address all funding issues in the national development plan and he said that should put an end to all talk of Luas.
The Minister has not answered my question about the £1 billion. Does she accept that figure?
The Chair has no responsibility for the Minister. I will call Deputy Stagg later.
I am very sad and do not want to say anything about this resignation to lower the morale in CIE any further, as it has not ever been so low, according to Mr. Peter Bunting. I ask the Minister to integrate herself more as a customer as well as a shareholder in CIE so that her street credibility in understanding the issues faced by workers, customers and management can be built upon. Will she do that? I ask that seriously as low morale in CIE will not improve until workers feel they have a Minister who understands the issues and is prepared to be part of the pain as well as the gain.
I would be very happy to integrate myself more as a customer, as the Deputy says. The last time Mr. O'Meara and I went on safari around the countryside to see bad rail lines before doing something about them, I was accused of interference and spying by top people. I would be happy to integrate myself more fully as a customer.
On the specific matter of Luas, which was one of the reasons given by the chairman for his resignation, I remind the Minister of a report she commissioned some time ago on public private partnerships, which recommended that Luas be operated by a private sector company. One of the recommendations—
It is not appropriate to quote.
One of the recommendations was that the operator be involved at an early stage of the planning. Given that planning for at least two of the lines is complete, what efforts have been made to engage a private sector operator and how is it envisaged that operator would interface with CIE, which would be the capital provider? What information has been given to CIE about those arrangements?
I responded earlier to that when I said the Government took a decision on the public private partnership. We conveyed that to CIE; we commissioned a study and asked for its views. That is going to the infrastructure committee and then on to the Cabinet. All the infrastructural matters are on the website. All the minutes of meetings and other advances can be accessed easily there.
And the private operator?
Yes, that will be part of the next step taken. We are busy with that and the April meeting of the infrastructure committee will have several matters relating to Luas on its agenda.
Does the Minister still hold to the view she expressed on radio this morning – that the timing of Mr. Joyce's resignation was due to an unwillingness on his part to face the music on rail safety? Is that still the Minister's view? Does she feel that comments like that about the chairman of a company – who I understand is accepting little or no remuneration for his work – are conducive to getting people to take on such duties under her in future?
The Deputy is twisting my comment. I said that the chairman had arranged to meet me and the Secretary General; this had been arranged with great civility on both sides. I heard no more from him until 7 a.m. this morning when I heard he was resigning. What inference could one draw? He knew the agenda yesterday when the Secretary General said there was one item on the agenda – that I was bringing the safety report to Cabinet and wanted to discuss it with him. He said it was fine and that he would be in. What further inference could one draw?
Just for clarity, the Minister is persisting in her view that the timing of the resignation was because Mr. Joyce was not prepared to face the music on rail safety. That is the Minister's considered opinion.
No, it is not. The Deputy is saying that.
The Deputy just said it.
Wait. The Deputy is saying that. I am saying – because I cannot locate Mr. Joyce – he gave me no reason he precipitately abandoned an arranged meeting. I can find no reason so the only reason I can find is that he did not want to face me. I can find no other reason.
So the Minister is persisting with that. That is very serious.
The House will agree that Mr. Joyce is not one bit afraid of the Minister or of facing her. Does she agree that it is extremely hypocritical of her to praise Mr. Joyce here lavishly while going on radio to say he is a coward? Also, does she accept that a modern, efficient transport system in any large city requires a generous level of subsidy? Does she agree that the morale needed by CIE to achieve that would be greatly helped, given her record with the company, by her resignation?
No. I have no notion of resigning.
I did not think the Minister had.
Not a notion of resigning. If I make arrangements to meet people I meet them. I have no idea of resigning.
What about the hypocrisy?
I cannot understand Mr. Joyce. We had amicable meetings and we went for meals together – three, I think. I had an extremely friendly exchange with him some months ago. I cannot get my head around why he did it and I am sorry he did it.
Character assassination.
I have said at Cabinet – my Cabinet colleagues will bear it out – that he is an excellent chairman.
His letter states why he resigned.
The fact that Deputy Bruton's best best friend appointed him does not matter to me. I am quite happy.
That is closer to it.
Now you are talking.
(Dublin West): Was the dreadful pay and conditions of Dublin Bus workers discussed over lobster and white wine when she met the chairman? Will she agree that it was extremely dishonest of her to use the subvention given to Dublin Bus in 1995 as a baseline to say in later years that it was the same or increased? Will she acknowledge that in 1987 the subvention to Dublin Bus was £16.4 million and that this has decreased drastically since then? Will she agree that all the published material indicates this is the lowest subvention in Europe or the United States? Will she use the current position to implement a completely different foreman style of management within CIE, including Dublin Bus, one that will democratically involve the workers in having a proper input so that they can bring about decent conditions and pay? Will she increase the subsidy to enable this to take place?
There are four good worker-directors on the board of CIE who contribute greatly to the conduct of board meetings. I do not eat lobster or drink white wine to which the Deputy referred; I drink red wine. The Deputy is correct in relation to the 1987 subsidy. In 1996 there were vigorous efforts to cut back on the subsidy which was £3.4 million; four years later it is £13.2 million.
A final supplementary from Deputy Yates.
The Minister said she does not know the reason Mr. Joyce resigned. I put it to her that Mr. Joyce's letter of resignation is absolutely clear-cut, listing all the policy issues he disputed with her. He concludes, "However, you and I have fundamentally differing views on this and are unlikely to agree in the foreseeable future". I put it to the Minister that the decision of Mr. Joyce represents a serious vote of no confidence in her as Minister for Public Enterprise and represents the sixth senior departure of a senior executive, chairman or director under her watch and that ultimately these people have said in no uncertain terms they have no confidence in her as Minister with responsibility for transport.
These are untruths. The Deputy constantly gets it wrong and until he puts himself in shape, he may as well leave politics. I refer to 1995 when the now leader of the Oppo sition's best, best friend was Minister and there was a quick succession of huge upheavals in CIE. There were five or six separate resignations at the time. These are now being rehashed in the Sunday newspapers. Court cases are pending against the then Minister, and now myself, the Government and CIE and search and discovery documents are to be found. These relate to the adventures and intrigue of Deputy Bruton's best, best friend.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.