asked the Minister for Public Enterprise what action she proposes to take to ensure that a public transport train system is available without interruption for passengers throughout the country who have been hugely affected by today's unofficial stoppage by 300 workers in Iarnród Éireann.
Private Notice Questions. - Unofficial Rail Strike.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise what steps she intends to take arising from the withdrawal of DART, mainline and suburban rail services as a result of a dispute involving locomotive drivers which has had a huge impact on traffic problems and created enormous difficulties for commuters, and in particular the steps being taken to ensure that the disruption does not recur and the issues at the centre of the dispute are resolved.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the measures, if any, she will take to resolve the dispute between CIE and train drivers in view of the disruption to public transport services and the ensuing traffic chaos; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
I thank the three Deputies for putting down these questions. The unofficial work stoppage today by Iarnród Éireann locomotive drivers is to be greatly regretted. I wish to express clearly my regret at what has happened and in particular at what is unofficial action. This has caused inconvenience and great hardship to commuters all over the country, not just in Dublin, and to those going about their ordinary business. It damages the reputation of the railways as an effective and reliable means of transport. Iarnród Éireann management and unions have been engaged in lengthy and difficult restructuring negotiations.
The Government and I, and I am sure the House, are strongly committed to the future of the railway in Ireland, as are the management and unions in Iarnród Éireann. Given that commitment, progress can best be made by management and unions in the company working together in a co-operative spirit to conclude these negotiations. The parties to the negotiations are themselves the best placed to resolve the remaining difficulties.
I thank the Labour Relations Commission for facilitating the discussions between management and unions and particularly for its day-long efforts last Sunday to try to get discussions back on track to avert today's unofficial action. While these talks were unsuccessful in preventing today's stoppage, I understand that a formula put forward by the Labour Relations Commission to get over the current difficulties will be discussed on Thursday by the unions representing Iarnród Éireann drivers. This formula is acceptable to Iarnród Éireann management and I hope it will be acceptable to the unions. I urge all parties to get around the table as soon as possible to resolve their remaining difficulties and to bring those talks to a successful conclusion.
Does the Minister accept that she alone has the political responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of commuters and travellers who could not get to their places of work and recreation today by train? Will she extend her apologies and not just her regrets to them about what has happened? The Minister knew about this threatened strike for at least four to five days. Why did she not have a contingency plan in place to ensure people could get to work today without waiting two or three hours for buses that did not turn up? Why did the Minister not take the initiative to hire private buses to allow people to get to work? Will the Minister assure the House that there will not be further such stoppages?
I fully and utterly accept my political responsibilities, even though the chairman was keen last week that I did not take responsibility and that I leave the matter to CIE as he said. I fully accept my political responsibilities for the bodies under my aegis, and I always have. Yes, I apologise for this unofficial action. It is not an official strike; it is unofficial. I accept absolutely my political responsibility, and that is what I told the chairman last Wednesday and yesterday.
I have known about this since last Friday morning, and I have been working practically every day to try to ensure that there would not be an unofficial stoppage. Everybody's efforts in this regard failed. The operational responsibility for Iarnród Éireann by law is with that body. That means the provision of replacement buses would be an operational matter and not one for me, but the political responsibility is mine and it is one I will carry out.
When the Minister says that responsibility for solving the dispute rests with management and the unions, and that it is a matter for them to resolve, she is in effect standing back from this dispute. In her own phrase she is leaving it to them to resolve.
In relation to political responsibility, does the Minister agree that the most essential thing a public transport system needs is certainty, and that uncertainty is at the heart of this dispute? There is uncertainty among unions and staff as to management's intentions, and there is uncertainty among management and the board as to the Minister's intentions. Does the Minister agree that it is her political responsibility to restore some certainty to the context in which this dispute is taking place and to indicate clearly what resources will be available for investment in rail transport as well as what the Government's policy on the development of rail transport will be? This should be done rather than allowing a situation to continue in CIE where the talk is of cuts rather than development of the system. That seems to be at the root of this dispute.
Deputy Gilmore said I was standing back. I am not, and that seems to be a difficulty for some of the participants in this matter. Deputy Gilmore also mentioned certainty. I agree that for some time — I am not referring to the Government Deputy Gilmore was part of — there was a lack of certainty in Iarnród Éireann as to the future of the railways. That goes back as far as the mid-1980s, as the safety report clearly states. For the first time there is a rail investment subhead in the Estimates for next year, which never happened before. There will be investment under that subhead from now on.
I have met the board of CIE four times since coming into office — three times at Heuston Station and once when it came to see me. We had an independent safety study done which clearly lays out what is to be spent on the railways, and I have asked them to furnish me with their investment needs as distinct from railway safety. We will be conveying what we can of those needs to the EU, but we will also look at Exchequer funding, public-private financing and CIE's own financing.
I am not uncertain as to the future of the railways. However, the taxpayer makes a massive investment in the railways. We must ensure there is a good return on that investment and there must be political responsibility for overseeing that process. I was given my job by the Taoiseach and the President gave me my seal of office. I will not stand down from dealing with this matter merely because someone said I should.
Given the Minister's acceptance of her political responsibility and the failure of the current format of negotiations on a viability plan for CIE, which has resulted in today's regrettable unofficial industrial action and traffic chaos and disruption throughout the country, will she agree to change or revamp these negotiations to ensure she or her representative is directly involved in them? As the shareholder and owner of the company, will she agree it is essential she should be so involved, notwithstanding the advice or demand of the chairman of CIE that she should mind her own business, as if this was not her business? Will she also agree the format I proposed of direct ministerial involvement in negotiations was successful on a previous occasion when a cost and competitiveness review was successfully negotiated with ESB unions, its management and, most importantly, the Minister's representative was directly involved?
I am fully aware that the cost and competitiveness review of the ESB turned out very satisfactorily for all concerned. The Deputy proposed the negotiations should be revamped. An employee of the Labour Relations Commission has been involved in these negotiations on a full-time basis for the past 18 months. I have faith in that machinery of Government. The Labour Relations Commission does a good job and is acting as a facilitator and conciliator. I note the Deputy's proposal that a representative, acting on behalf of the Government, should be involved in such talks. The Government appointed John Behan to be part of that process and he attends all the talks and works with all those involved in them.
Will the Minister agree the tension between herself and the chairman of the company had added to the difficulty of bringing about a solution to this dispute? She appears to be more concerned about voicing her side of the argument about such tension rather than voicing her concern about those commuters who had to walk to work today or had to wait many hours for buses. Her attention should be focused on removing that tension so that she can get to grips with the problem. Will she tell us about Mr. Behan's role in this matter? He has been described as a facilitator for the Government and as the eyes and ears of the Minister. He does not appear to have a role with the board of CIE. What does he do and what role has he played in this dispute in recent days?
I do not have any difficulty in my dealings with the chairman. If he has difficulties with me, they are of his making, not mine.
Did the Minister meet him for dinner?
We had lunch.
Was it nice and pleasant?
Let us hear the Minister without interruption.
The first I knew that the chairman had difficulties with me was when I heard him say so on Morning Ireland. I met him on four occasions.
(Interruptions.)
I tell the truth. I met him on four occasions. I do not intend to follow the route taken by Michael Lowry who set out to deliberately demolish some boards.
There is something niggling here.
I have not spoken publicly about chairmen or chief executive officers, nor do I intend to. I intend to do business properly in that the chairman of whatever State company is concerned calls to see me or I go to see him or her and we do business. The tension of which the Deputy spoke is imaginary.
We have an imaginary strike?
We are imagining trains are not running. The Minister should deal with the issue of commuters who were not able to take the train to work this morning.
The Deputy attended Cabinet meetings with Michael Lowry and she will know he recited fairytales at those meetings.
Is the Minister blaming Deputy Lowry for this strike?
I do not have a gripe with any chairmen, irrespective of who appointed them. I do not intend to have any such gripe nor do I intend to talk publicly about anyone. That is not my role. It is my role to nourish the company and to bring it along the road of whatever negotiations are necessary. I do not intend to follow the path taken by Deputy Lowry. I deeply and sincerely regret and apologise for the unofficial action today which discommoded thousands of not only Dublin commuters, but commuters throughout the country who could not travel by train.
The Minister did not answer my question about John Behan's role and she did not say why she did not have a contingency plan to provide alternative transport for commuters. She must take political responsibility for this matter.
He was appointed by Government and his role was to work with all concerned in CIE to bring the talks, which have been ongoing for four years, to a satisfactory conclusion. He has had a difficult job, but he has done it well. I wish to say to the Cabinet—
The Minister addresses the chairman of State companies and the Cabinet in a finger wagging mode.
Let us hear the Minister without interruption. The Minister should not answer questions put by way of interruption as they are out of order.
That is very good advice from the Chair.
What is John Behan's relationship with the company?
Mr. John Behan was appointed by the Government to act as a facilitator for those concerned in the negotiations in CIE and that is what he done in the past three days.
While the Minister and the chairman of the company appear to be shaping up to each other, the public have been left without trains. Will she explain to the bewildered travelling public the cause of train stoppages today? Can she assure the travelling public that the unofficial stoppage today will not recur, particularly in the run up to Christmas and the new year, and what action is she taking to ensure it will not recur?
On why there have been no trains today, following conversations with all the parties concerned during the past four days, it was reported to me that negotiations were in train or in progress—
There was a derailment.
They were derailed.
Let us have quiet for the Minister.
Thank you, Deputy. Negotiations were in progress and various members of the unions involved said they thought the tenor of the negotiations had changed. They interpreted that some confrontation had entered the negotiations, but management rebut that. The matter simmered and unofficial action was taken.
The Deputy asked if I could give an assurance that there would not be a recurrence of such official action. I cannot give that assurance, but I have spoken to the main people involved in the unions and to the Labour Relations Commission and they hope talks will resume on Thursday. However, that is no comfort to those who have not be able to travel by train or DART today. Those involved hope the talks will resume on Thursday and will remain on course until they are concluded.
In her reply earlier, the Minister said that the Government appointed John Behan as a special troubleshooter.
Her eyes and ears.
How does that square up with her reply to me on 10 November when she said that no such person was appointed by her or the Government and CIE had retained the services of a management change specialist? The two answers seem to conflict. What transpired at yesterday's meeting with the chairman of CIE? Does she agree that the chairman's earlier notorious statement that the Minister should not meet unions in CIE, which effectively told her to mind her own business, was precipitated by John Behan, the management specialist, who seemed to second guess management in the negotiations? Does she further agree that the second guessing of management by this person appointed by Government created a situation where the chairman made such a statement? Does she agree that this statement precipitated today's unofficial action?
I do not intend to give my interpretation of the chairman's statement. The chairman and I have had a conversation about that.
Sounds ominous.
The Deputy asked about the apparent dichotomy between the reply on 10 November and today but there is none. The Government took a decision, it was conveyed to CIE, which in turn employed Mr. Behan.
Did the Government appoint Mr. Behan?
I call Deputy Olivia Mitchell. Does she want to give way to Deputy Owen?
The Minister said the Government appointed him.
(Interruptions.)
Can I get clarification on my question?
Deputy Stagg, I called Deputy Olivia Mitchell.
I want clarification.
(Interruptions.)
There was no dichotomy but there is a contradiction.
Deputy Stagg, I have called Deputy Olivia Mitchell. Please give way to her. If I have time I will come back to you. If not, you will have to give notice on another day.
We need clarification.
There is a contradiction in the Minister's statement.
Deputy Stagg, I intend to conclude this question very shortly and I ask you to give way to Deputy Mitchell.
We need clarification. You must let me have an answer.
Deputy Stagg, resume your seat while the Chair is on its feet, please.
Does the Minister accept that her record of interference in industrial relations issues in CIE has been a catalogue of disasters for the travelling public? Does she accept that she interfered on the introduction of Imp buses with disastrous consequences? A total of £3 million worth of buses are locked up and they are urgently needed. Does she accept that ten days ago she announced a Nitelink/DART service before consulting with unions, with the result that there will be no late night DART service? These are operational issues.
Exactly.
Does she accept that she is seriously jeopardising the ability of CIE to face up to the huge challenges of change that face it involving management and workers and, given her record, her real contribution could be to get both sides back to the negotiating table without the spectre of her or any of her facilitators sitting on the shoulder of one side or the other antagonising each other?
There are a variety of opinions in the House — I have done nothing and not interfered or I have done too much and have over interfered. It is very difficult to reconcile those points of view.
We are not saying that.
The Minister manages to do so. That is the wonderful thing.
The different points of view are coming from the Deputy's party.
That is not what I said. I wanted a contingency plan.
Allow the Minister to answer, please.
It is amazing because Deputy Owen said I had not intervened and Deputy Mitchell said I interfered too much. I am all for diversity of approach but that is overdoing it.
The Minister welcomed it.
I did not announce the Nitelink service. The first I heard of a late night DART service was on the radio at 5 p.m. after it was announced. The following day Deputy Bruton said on radio that he very much regretted that CIE management had not concluded its talks with the unions before it made the precipitate announcement. This is exactly what happened.
I call Deputy Sargent.
On a point of order the Minister said to me that John Behan was appointed by the Government—
That is not a point of order and the Deputy knows it. The Chair is on his feet. In fairness to Deputy Sargent I intend to conclude this question very shortly. I will call Deputy Stagg again.
I want an answer.
The Deputy is all over the place.
There is a point of clarification.
In July 1997 after two weeks in office I was presented with a ready made official strike in CIE in which I had no input because it had been simmering before I arrived. The matter was discussed and the Government agreed that CIE would benefit from the services of a facilitator who had a record in various companies of doing that work.
The Minister misled the House.
That decision was conveyed to CIE, which in turn employed John Behan.
The Minister said the Government appointed him.
The Minister contradicted herself.
There is no mystery in the matter and it is incorrect for any Member to seek to corner or denigrate anybody. What happened today was wrong. Commuters pay the CIE subsidy and have been discommoded by the unofficial action which has taken place.
And why?
It is unfortunate and sad that they must bear the brunt today.
The Minister misled them.
It is unofficial and I will exercise my responsibility to—
(Interruptions.)
To whom does the facilitator report?
I just want an answer. Why is the Minister so sensitive about the chairman? I did not ask her to stand up.
I agree with the Minister and she has put her finger on it. Commuters pay the subsidy for Iarnród Éireann, while in most European countries Governments pay the bulk of it. Does she agree that investment in public transport has been nothing short of pathetic? A total of 10 per cent of the EU operational programme was spent on rail compared to 53 per cent on roads. Is she saying that CIE is satisfied with the level of investment by the Government? Will there be special provision in the Finance Bill for capital investment in railways? Is she prepared to arrange a meeting with the staff of CIE affected mostly by this dispute so that the rest of us who use trains will not be forced to cycle 22 miles from Balbriggan to the House as I did today? Will there be a resolution of this matter tomorrow?
The Deputy asked four or five questions. I wish to answer them.
Will I receive a reply?
On a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, it is entirely unacceptable that you take groups of supplementary questions together. It is not in accordance with Standing Orders.
Deputy Stagg, I am happy to conclude the question at this stage.
There is no necessity or timetable to conclude either. When the matter is dealt with, it should be concluded, not before it.
It is entirely at the discretion of the Chair. We have spent half an hour on one question.
Rather than lose my opportunity for a supplementary question—
If the Deputy feels it is better not to call other Members, I am happy to call the Minister for a final reply.
It is inappropriate and I intend to pursue it further. On 10 November the Minister told me—
It is inappropriate to quote during Question Time and I call on you to ask a brief question.
I am not quoting, I am paraphrasing.
The Taoiseach quoted earlier.
I am doing my best to ask questions as succinctly as possible. Had I not been interrupted I would have finished by now. On that date the Minister specifically said that she had not appointed anybody to represent her and that it would not be appropriate to do so, and that CIE had retained the services of somebody. Now we hear that this person is reporting directly to the Minister.
And to management.
The Minister misled me and the House by her answer in the House on 10 November when I was genuinely trying to elicit information about this.
It was a Government decision to appoint somebody.
Deputy Stagg is being repetitive.
I am asking the Minister to clarify the situation, given the contradictory answers she has given about the appointment on Mr. John Behan, troubleshooter, to CIE, who is causing most of the trouble there.
Following Deputy Stagg's question, can the Minister explain why, after the appointment of trouble shooters and facilitators and meetings she has described in her replies today, industrial relations in Iarnród Éireann are back to the bad old days of unofficial stoppages and train disruptions such as we have not seen for 30 years?
Deputy Sargent asked several questions. As to what will happen tomorrow, I am assured that, awful as it is, this is a one-day stoppage. I cannot speak about the Finance Bill in advance of its introduction. The Deputy asked if I would arrange a meeting and, yes, I would be glad to arrange a meeting.
Regarding Deputy Emmet Stagg's questions, if I inadvertently misled the House, I would be glad to come here tomorrow and openly correct it. Mr. John Behan is reimbursed by CIE. He reports to me informally. He deals with management.
Informally?
Yes, he comes in to meet me and to report to me. He does the same duties in Aer Lingus, dealing with management, unions and all concerned in trying to bring a very difficult situation to a conclusion, as do the management of CIE also.
Deputy Éamon Gilmore asked why in spite of the appointment of trouble shooters the situation in Iarnród Éireann is as it is. It is because it is a very difficult and complex situation going back over a great number of years.
When was the last time we had a train strike?
Today's event is exacerbated by an unofficial group — there are two official unions and an unofficial group. CIE needs to be put in shape as quickly as possible. The first viability plan was produced four years ago. It is time to look at it in a modern sense, in the light of the recent safety report in particular which made reference to restructuring.
I deeply regret what happened in this city and country today with regard to public transport. I hope there will not be a recurrence. I intend to carry out my duties and to act as Minister with responsibility for public transport.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.