Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Jan 2017

Vol. 936 No. 1

Leaders' Questions

Deputy Micheál Martin

There have been very significant events at Bus Éireann which have caused deep concern among the workforce and the travelling public. I make the point that the issues are fundamentally of a policy nature and there are important policy principles at stake. It is very important that the Government makes it clear that it supports the principle of a State-supported public service transport company. I want to make it clear that we do and that we think flowing from that should be a determined effort to ensure the existing issues and challenges are resolved.

It should be acknowledged that there had been significant cuts to the public subvention to Bus Éireann in recent years, from €49 million in 2009 to €36 million this year. While that represents an increase this year over last year, it indicates nonetheless the significant change in terms of public subvention that has occurred. In terms of the operation of the free travel scheme, Bus Éireann receives approximately €4.86 per passenger on a route compared with the fare of €11.78, and it is clear there is a yawning gap between those figures as well. Those are two avenues that are available to the Government of the day in terms of ensuring the retention and viability of any public service transport company. The route licensing system needs to be reviewed and Deputy Troy has articulated that on an ongoing basis.

I make the point that decent wages are important. In this society and in developed economies where there is growing inequality between those on very high wages and those on low wages, the state has a role to play to ensure there is some decent degree of incomes policy in certain sectors of the economy. In certain sectors there have been very significant downward pressures because of globalisation and we have seen the political dislocation and disruption that has occurred as a result. That is a significant issue in the context of the Bus Éireann dispute as well, and of that there is no doubt. That is something the Government must weigh up.

The Labour Court has declined to get involved. I have been making the point consistently to the Taoiseach that this is not only a narrow management-union issue. It is a broader issue in terms of public policy and transport policy. I put it to the Taoiseach that the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport needs to convene talks between the National Transport Authority, which has a critical role in such matters as licensing, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, Bus Éireann and the various trade unions involved to iron out the policy framework and the key issues that can form the background to a successful resolution of the outstanding issues.

The Taoiseach

Obviously, this is a matter of policy. However, it is also a matter of commercial reality. Essentially, the matter is under discussion between the management and trade unions. The Oireachtas joint committee is currently hearing from the acting chief executive officer of Bus Éireann in respect of the company's current difficulties. Government policy in this area is that the travelling public should have access to the best quality in transport services, whether that is in frequency or choice of routes. That should apply for customers and for commuters. There have been a number of positive changes in the last couple of years which have resulted in more services, better frequencies and more competitive fares and the travelling public has voted with its feet. The number for the use of commercial bus services was approximately 23 million in 2015. We should welcome first and foremost the fact that more people are using public transport.

The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform granted an increase of 17% in the subvention this year and it is now up to €35 million. However, it is a commercial fact that passenger growth has not been experienced in the Expressway arm of Bus Éireann, a service that competes with other operators. I gave Deputy Troy the number of licences issued in recent years in response to a point that was raised. There was some misunderstanding about the number issued.

I hope the trade unions and management can continue to engage in a realistic and constructive fashion about this serious matter. There are those who try to ascribe what is happening to a policy failing. However, as the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, and I have stated, this is a commercial problem and it deserves a commercial response. That means a resolution between the company and the trade unions must be found. We must be very clear about this. At the heart of this public policy issue is the travelling public. The overarching objective is to get more people to use public transport. I have already pointed to the improvements that have been made.

In respect of the Deputy's reference to the National Transport Authority, NTA, the authority stands ready to intervene with regard to rural Ireland, if required to do so, to ensure public transport connectivity if commercial services are reconfigured following the discussions that take place between the management and the trade unions. The NTA has issued invitations to political parties and groups so that it can explain its role and responsibility in this area. Nobody, least of all the Government or the Minister, underestimates the difficulties Bus Éireann faces. However, these difficulties will not be resolved through media comment but through dialogue, discussion and negotiation.

Deputy Micheál Martin

The Taoiseach referred to access to the best quality services, but he does not say that he supports the principle of a publicly-owned transport company such as Bus Éireann. Does he believe in the principle of having a public transport company? That is an important policy principle he might clarify.

There is a real doubt and suspicion with regard to the Minister's inputs. There has been a clean out of the former management. Four or five weeks ago we were told that Expressway was the real issue but, subsequently, it has become the entire company. With the use of terms such as "insolvency" matters have ratcheted up, culminating in the premature move to the Labour Court yesterday by the management side. That move backfired. It appears that something is afoot. People such as the Minister and others are saying their fingerprints are on nothing and they are not involved, yet everybody thinks their fingerprints are well and truly on a policy that is being pursued to a degree by stealth. A little more transparency from all would be welcome. The convening of all-round talks on the policy issues and routes would go a long way towards beginning on a pathway to resolving this issue.

The Taoiseach

I assure the Deputy that nothing is afoot.

The central issue is the Expressway service and the losses accumulating there every year, despite the fact that the subvention has increased to €35 million this year, an increase of 17%. There was some preliminary engagement with the Labour Court yesterday, the focus of which was on procedural requirements relating to future discussions. The Minister is very anxious that management and unions sit down and negotiate on the central issue, which is the commercial loss-making end of the Expressway service. The NTA has a different role and responsibility here.

The Minister has pointed out that in the event of Expressway services being reconfigured, where it impacts on rural Ireland the NTA is available to provide connectivity to those rural areas. This will also be impacted on in part by the publication and implementation of the programme to deal with the potential of rural Ireland. It is a serious matter but central policy is that more travelling people should use the public bus services. Improvements have been made during recent years including new frequencies, new routes and increased competitiveness. However, the central issue is commercial and I hope management and unions can continue to negotiate on it, if necessary through the mechanisms of the State and the Labour Court.

Deputy Gerry Adams

This evening, the Dáil will discuss a motion relating to the Stardust tragedy in Artane on the night of 14 February 1981. I commend Deputy Tommy Broughan on sponsoring the motion. On that fateful St. Valentine's night, 48 people died and 214 people were injured. Some of the family members are in Leinster House today, in the Public Gallery. I extend my continued sympathy and solidarity to them and the survivors. Sinn Féin will support the motion.

Today, 36 years later, the families have still not got the full truth about how their loved ones died. There are also valid questions about the totally inadequate way in which the tragedy was investigated and dealt with by the institutions of the State. The original Keane inquiry into the Stardust fire claimed that it was caused by probable arson. The finding was overturned in 2009 as a result of the independent examination by Mr. Paul Coffey, SC. This led to the correction of the public record, which exonerated those present in the Stardust nightclub of any blame. The families of the victims of the Stardust tragedy are seeking a new commission of investigation into this dreadful tragedy. They say they have new evidence.

The onus should not be on the families of the victims to bring forward new evidence. It is the responsibility of the State and its agencies. In his report sent to the Government on 10 December 2008, on page 70, section 5.13, Mr. Coffey stated: "I further accept that a new inquiry is necessary if it is the only way of placing on the public record a finding that is based on evidence." However, this recommendation was not contained in the published report of January 2009.

I have raised these questions with the Taoiseach previously and he has rejected calls for a new inquiry. The families say the new evidence indicates that the fire started in the roof space and have presented it to the Department of Justice and Equality. The State has never given proper weight to other claims pointing to the culpability of the owners of the complex. The owners of the Stardust received compensation; the families have not. Will the Taoiseach support the families in their search for justice? Will he establish a new commission of investigation into the tragedy?

The Taoiseach

I join Deputy Adams in his expression of sympathy to families who lost 48 members in the Stardust fire 35 years ago. Nothing we say or do can bring back those loved ones. Those of us who can remember the tragedy on that weekend can never forget it.

The Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, negotiated, both on his own behalf and with his group, putting a particular issue about the Stardust fire into the programme for Government, which was agreed and accepted. That element which he negotiated states, "Full regard will be had to any new evidence which emerges which would be likely to definitely establish the cause of the fire at Stardust." That is from the programme for Government, adopted by the House, and which was negotiated by the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath. He has had a personal interest in this matter for many years, as indeed have other Members - such as Deputy Broughan, the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Bruton, and Deputy Haughey - in the constituencies affected.

It has been 35 years since the Stardust fire. Up to 214 people were injured. Families and relatives of the victims of the tragedy have never received full and complete answers as to what occurred on the night of 14 February 1981. As Deputy Adams knows, in order to have any inquiry, there has to be a basis for it. There was a full-scale tribunal of inquiry and the Coffey report into the fire. Arising from both of these, questions were asked and people felt strongly that answers were not given. There are discussions taking place as we speak in respect of this matter. I want to express a willingness that there should be a commission of investigation. The basis upon which that has to take place is one that is being discussed by the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality and the Minister of State at the Department of Health.

Obviously, I would like to see the evidence that has been produced, which is purported to be new evidence that would warrant a commission of investigation. There is no disregard to the principle of having a commission of investigation. It is a very sensitive matter. For people who lost loved ones and family members, they can never be brought back. They deserve to have every attempt made to provide them with answers to their particular questions. Deputy Adams and I have discussed this in the context of so many other areas regarding Northern Ireland, with tragedies on one side or the other. Many of those obviously remain incomplete.

I hope the discussions that are under way will bring about a conclusion whereby matters can be progressed. As I said, the programme for Government is very clear on this. What is in the programme was negotiated directly by the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath. I hope that can be followed through because the Government wants to implement what it actually agreed to.

Deputy Gerry Adams

This has nothing to do with the North of Ireland, it has to do with the north of Dublin. The Government's resistance to a commission of investigation is predicated on the Taoiseach's often stated view - repeated today - that new evidence has to be presented. The families have presented new evidence which the Department of Justice and Equality has had for the past year. Accordingly, the Taoiseach's criterion has been fulfilled. Leaving that to one side, the fact is that 48 people died and a further 214 were injured. Families were devastated. The Taoiseach is quite right to say that families will never recover. I know that from my personal experience. One never recovers. A community has been deeply scarred. The first inquiry's findings have to be set to one side. Even that on its own, justifies what the families are asking for. There are also credible questions about the investigation by the State of this entire disaster. The Taoiseach said there is a willingness for there to be a commission of investigation. Will he just say that he will authorise a commission of investigation finally? He has met families in the past but not since he became Taoiseach. Will he meet the families in his office and announce a commission of investigation of the type outlined in tonight's Private Members' motion?

The Taoiseach

It is not the same as Northern Ireland. However, what is the same is the requirement of people who lost loved ones to find out the causes of their deaths. Whether that is in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, it is the same human reaction and feeling.

Deputy Gerry Adams

Then the Taoiseach should set the example.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

That is pathetic.

The Taoiseach

There is certainly room here because there has been quite a deal of contact in connection with officials in the Department of Justice and Equality. Some people might not have the belief that others might like.

I do not see any difficulty in having the Government meet the families. The Deputy will appreciate I do not know the new evidence. I am quite willing to have a commission of investigation but that evidence needs to be examined. In the case of any investigation that takes place-----

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

The Taoiseach has the dossier the families gave him. I handed it to the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald.

The Taoiseach

-----one must demonstrate the basis and justification for it. There was a full tribunal here and another report by a senior counsel. There were still questions left to be answered. Now I understand there is new evidence. If that is the case and that evidence shows there should be a commission of investigation, then there will be one. I ask the Deputy to accept from me that the discussions that have taken place can hopefully bring that about.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I wish to return to the urgent issue of Bus Éireann. Across Ireland this morning, buses delivered people to their schools, places of work, shops, homes and offices. Outside of Dublin, many, if not most, of those buses were operated for or on behalf of Bus Éireann, our national bus company. Over recent months, we have heard a lot of noise but have received little clarity about the future of this vital national company. There are conflicting reports on the status of Expressway and numerous scenarios as to what is actually happening within the company. What has become clear is that the crisis is being used to slash the terms and conditions of front-line staff working in Bus Éireann. This will further add to the race to the bottom in workers' terms and conditions across the bus industry. I understand proposals have been put forward that would cut earnings by 30%. They are also using a pay offer - a rise of 2% per year is supposed to address that incredible deficit. There is a registered employment agreement in place covering bus workers that has been ignored by bus management in Bus Éireann. I believe they are trying to bypass the industrial relations machinery of the State. The cack-handed attempt by the company management to bring this crisis to the Labour Court yesterday was refused by the court. This was after management had failed to participate in a Labour Court pay claim from staff just before Christmas. No doubt, reforms and changes may need to be made to work practices. No sector can avoid the need for ongoing modernisation but these changes have to be negotiated. Instead, management has been engaged in a public relations doomsday exercise to set an agenda for confrontation with the trade union movement. The reality is the National Transport Authority, NTA, licences are awarded to private operators in which there are no employment conditions attaching, in effect allowing a race to the bottom on terms and conditions for bus drivers. This crisis goes to the heart of what is driving economic inequality. Instead of lifting up all bus drivers to an even playing field, we have a bonfire of rights and conditions and a race to the bottom. I have no doubt the clerical and driver staff members of Bus Éireann would be willing to discuss proposals to ensure the company remains viable but they cannot do that with a gun to their head. They cannot do that if the entire pitch is tilted against them.

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport has removed himself from all of this. He is now a spectator and I am interested to know where he is now - most of the Cabinet is here - when two important Leaders' Questions are put on this issue to the Taoiseach. I want to ask the Taoiseach two brief questions. Does he support the current approach of management in Bus Éireann, a company that is owned entirely by the State? Would he support a sectoral employment order to cover the bus industry to ensure the terms and conditions of workers are protected and that there is an even playing field for all?

The Taoiseach

I thank Deputy Howlin. Few people in the House know as much about this as does the Deputy. He has had experience of the industrial relations machinery of the State being made available to many companies in the past. This is not the first occasion we have had some difficulties with Bus Éireann. The difficulties of the past have been ironed out on each occasion by using that machinery and by using the negotiation capacity that exists between management and trade unions.

It is true to say that 23 million public passengers used Bus Éireann in 2015. It is also true to say, as the Deputy pointed out, that many thousands of school children are brought either by Bus Éireann or by another provider, under contract, to their schools and home safely in the evening. As I said to Deputy Martin earlier, €35 million of a subvention, which represents an increase of 17%, was made available by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform this year. This is an issue of public policy in terms of attracting more people to use public services such as the public transport service. The central issue in respect of the Expressway service is one that needs to be dealt with because the commercial reality is that it is a loss-making area. The National Transport Authority, NTA, has pointed out that if there is a reconfiguration of the Expressway service, it stands ready to provide connectivity to rural areas that would lose that service were that to happen.

The Deputy made a few other points. As I said earlier, the chief executive, who is serving in an acting capacity, is before an Oireachtas inquiry now. Bus Éireann is preparing plans which it will present for discussion in the next number of weeks. The answer to this, as the Deputy is well aware, is to engage with the facilities of the State where these particular problems and confrontations can be discussed, negotiated and concluded.

My understanding is that the engagement with the Labour Court yesterday was about the requirements that have to be put in place in order that discussions can take place on it. It will not be sorted out in here by megaphone politics. This will have to be sorted out, as every other dispute is sorted out, around the table between the management and the unions or using the facilities of the State. I hope that machinery will be able to engage itself with the management and the unions in the interests of the company, the drivers, those who work in it and also the travelling public. Nobody wants to see this go wrong.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

The Taoiseach launched an action plan on regional and rural development this week to much fanfare. He spoke of revitalising towns and villages across the country. At the same time another arm of government is putting the vital transport infrastructure that these rural communities need at risk. In a reply to a parliamentary question to my colleague last week, it was indicated that the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport has never met the Rural Transport Network which is amazing. Will the Taoiseach direct the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport and the NTA to sit down with Bus Éireann and with the trade unions and bring this charade to an end, or is he content for another round of industrial unrest to undermine a vital national company and a vital resource for the communities across this country?

The Taoiseach

I agree that it is a vital national company. I commend the drivers and the workers for the service they have provided on a daily basis over the years. As I pointed out, more than 23 million members of the travelling public used Bus Éireann in 2015.

The increase in the public service obligation, PSO, for 2017 is 11% across PSO services generally. The Deputy knows as well as I do that the way these engagements and difficulties can be and have to be sorted out is by using the independent mechanisms of the State. Telling the Deputy something and giving directions for this, that or the other to be done is not the way to sort this out.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

The Minister cannot be completely excluded.

The Taoiseach

Nobody wants to see this vital commercial company have to withdraw or for it to get into serious difficulties. The way that this can be sorted out is by using the Labour Court so the management and the unions can sit down, discuss their differences and hopefully come to a conclusion in everybody's interest. The central issue is the Expressway service which is losing money commercially and that must be addressed. The way it can be addressed between the management and the unions is by using the facilities of the State and the Minister, Deputy Ross, has expressed this on many occasions.

The Deputy referred to the programme launched in Ballymahon the other day for the revitalisation of 600 towns and villages across the country. The NTA is quite prepared and plays its part as an element of that-----

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Is it not surprising that the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport never met the Rural Transport Network?

Deputy Alan Kelly

He never met the Rural Transport Network.

The Taoiseach

-----but that does not impact at the moment on the Expressway services which go through sections of rural Ireland. We had support for the Deputy when he was a former Minister dealing with transport issues as well, as he will be well aware.

Deputy Catherine Martin

This week, individual citizens and families in my constituency have become the latest innocent victims of being forced to face the fallout, living nightmare and financial upset of learning that their dream homes have been severely blighted by inept, incompetent, greed-driven building standards that were not properly regulated by the State. There is a duty on Government to protect its people against incompetent rogue cowboy builders. This duty extends to tidying up, once and for all, the mess and the shoddy workmanship that is allowed to go on unchecked and unregulated. Despite numerous reported debacles since Priory Hall, this Government has still not acted to secure a remedy for people whose homes have been proven to have been built in a defective way. Where is the remedy? What redress and tangible support do these hardworking people have when they discover major defects in their homes? In many cases, the builders and developers have gone bust. However, our forgiving corporate insolvency laws allow them to return to the workforce. They are given a second chance and a fresh start, but the individual citizens who do not enjoy the protection of the corporate veil are abandoned. There are still no adequate statutory remedy or supports in place for many people who find themselves in this situation. There is lots of talk but no concrete action for thousands of people who are enduring this living hell.

Will the Taoiseach undertake a review of the causes of housing failures that have come to light in recent years? Will he set out a strategy for dealing with housing defects to include statutory protection for home buyers supported by comprehensive mandatory defects insurance for all dwellings? Will he please explain to the House why the only law reform in this area introduced since Priory Hall is changes to building control, with zero new remedies for consumers, no regulatory body for contractors and no dispute resolution scheme for the people of this country when defects emerge in their homes?

The Taoiseach

I thank the Deputy for her question. We had this before with Priory Hall and Longboat Quay, and now we have it in this instance. The solution is one that was never implemented in the first place. When planning permissions are issued by local authorities for major developments such as these, it is very simple to have a clerk of works appointed to supervise the job and, where greed arises or contractors decide to cut corners, order them to take the development down and rebuild it properly. However, during the exceptional boom - when everybody assumed we would all be millionaires without having to do any work - corners were cut. In the cases of Longboat Quay and Priory Hall, greed was a central element which impacted on the lives of the people involved. The answer to this question is that when planning permissions are given, there must be an oversight authority to see that the building is in accordance with the planning conditions issued. I cannot say to the Deputy that there are not other Priory Halls, Longboat Quays or other instances of what she has pointed out. It is not just about building regulations. They are important, and building standards are critical, but it is also about supervising the developments. If one grants permission for X number of developments and there is nobody to supervise what happens, one must be able to take the risk that the standard should be as one would expect, which is not what has happened in the case to which the Deputy refers.

This issue and what should be done about it are a focus of the Minister for housing. In my view, where this has happened over the years, be it in individual cases, group apartments or major developments, the supervisory authority needs to be appointed either independently or by the local authority which grants the planning applications in the first instance. I have had numerous experiences over the years of cases in which contractors did have to obey the law and the rules and where those who did not were punished for not doing so. This is not an easy situation for the tenants in these apartments. They paid big money for the dream homes, as the Deputy says, to which they aspire. We had the same situation with pyrite on so many occasions. I cannot say to her that this has not happened elsewhere. From speaking to the families of those who lost children and young students in the Berkeley balcony collapse, I know that the position is the same in other countries where corners were cut and standards not realised.

This is an issue that requires a response and the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government has already set out these standards. It is a case of implementing and supervising them in all developments. I cannot tell the Deputy this is the last case in the country.

Deputy Catherine Martin

While I appreciate the Taoiseach's recognition that we need a supervisory authority, the fact is local authority building control is greatly underfunded. In many cases claims against builders are statute barred because defects were not noticed by home owners in the legally stipulated period and there are still no solutions for people whose homes were built pre-2014.

The huge legislative gap which exists in this area more than five years after Priory Hall is staggering. How many times must this issue rear its ugly head before the people who are affected by it have some level of certainty about the relief they can seek? Are they forever to be reliant on a Government which acts in an ad hoc wait-to-see manner? These are people's homes and it should be a `Government priority that if anything happens to people’s homes, they should not be left in limbo. The Government’s housing plan is called Rebuilding Ireland. Let us make sure we do it right this time. The Taoiseach should initiate a review of previous housing failures and ensure home owners have somewhere to turn for relief from the mistakes of developers.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy will recall that we had question after question in this Chamber for a long period about Priory Hall, with court cases and one thing and another. This was eventually sorted when the Government took action with the other agencies, the same as applied in respect of the defects in Longboat Quay and others. Obviously, things have changed and engineers are required to sign off on certificates of standards, whether on small issues or major developments.

The Deputy makes the point that home owners did not notice the defects. How could they? Many home owners would not have any practical experience of building standards or of how buildings are constructed. Where rogue contractors, either through greed or taking short cuts, put defective buildings together, or fire traps as was the case in Priory Hall, they are guilty of a grossly serious offence. In my view they should never be allowed to build again, or not for a very long time. Their certificates of competency should be withdrawn. We need a supervisory independent clerk of works or authority to say that is not what they got permission for, that is not the standard, and they must take it down and rebuild it. If they find that somebody signs off on a certificate saying it is of quality that it is not, that person should pay the penalty as well.