Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 7 Oct 2003

Vol. 571 No. 4

Leaders' Questions.

Mr. Kenny

This morning saw a new twist in public service broadcasting when the nation was informed by RTE radio of the decision by Irish Rail to close down DART services for 18 months with four days notice. Surely, this is commercial lunacy as we approach the busiest period of the year. It begs the question of who is really in charge of the running of the country and our public services when it is announced on behalf of a major State agency that it is intended to discommode 90,000 commuters every weekend for the next 18 months. When did the Government become aware of this plan and why did Irish Rail fail to make it public long before now? Why did Irish Rail fail to involve itself with those customers, commuters and retailers who will be discommoded? What contingency plans have been put in place?

Despite the fact that a spokesman said that for two Saturdays the lines will remain open, as we approach the time when the Taoiseach will take over the Presidency of the European Union and shops are already filling with Christmas goods, the numbers referred to will vastly exceed 90,000 over weekends in the run-up to Christmas. Will the Taoiseach indicate when he found out about this matter, the reason it was kept secret and the contingency plans that are in place to allow for the smooth running of public affairs?

The Taoiseach

The improvements to DART and commuter rail services will involve an investment of €176 million which is necessary to facilitate the operation of eight-carriage DART and commuter trains, accessibility to mobility impaired customers, delivery of 40 new DART carriages and an increase in peak passenger capacity of over 30%. The work is due to commence on the southern section of the line this weekend and will continue until June 2004. Work on the city centre and northside routes will commence after the work on the southern route is completed, presumably the second half of next year.

The work schedule is planned to avoid affecting customers on busy weekdays. It will commence on Friday nights, after the last DART, and work will continue around the clock through to early Monday morning. In other words, a week's work will be done in one weekend. Those are the arrangements.

The most efficient and value for money option is to close a large chunk of the network at a time as the power has to be shut down to undertake work on the overhead lines. Iarnród Éireann has advised that normal services will be provided on the two Saturdays before Christmas, the two busiest shopping weekends of the year. Extra bus services will be provided by Bus Éireann adjacent to the affected routes. Apparently those arrangements have been put in place.

The Minister for Transport has requested the chairman of CIE to examine the possibility of maintaining DART services during the three weeks in December before Christmas. The Minister has also requested the chairman to further consider suspending the start-up of the necessary upgrading work and to carry out this work during the days after Christmas and early in the new year, which traditionally is a quiet time for transport services, and on weekends when DART services could be suspended for a period of seven days.

I understand CIE indicated in March that it intended to undertake this upgrading work. There appears to be some disagreement as to whether it indicated a period during which the work would be started. I understand that was not made clear to commuters in the past few weeks but I believe it was put into the public domain in the spring that it would commence this work in the autumn.

Mr. Kenny

The Taoiseach rightly referred to improvements on the DART line. The Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, to whom Irish Rail is responsible, is the man who does not miss an opportunity for promotion of himself, his Department and his vision. He was present when the boring machine broke through from Fairview.

Mr. Brennan

The Deputy is not too shy himself.

Mr. Kenny

He was present when the bridge was put up in Dundrum. He was able to change the confusing signs for motorists last year. I am astounded to think he has invited CIE to reconsider commencing this work. When he was informed by CIE as to its plans, this matter should have been discussed in public with the people who will be discommoded every weekend. Today, retailers said they will be at a loss of €300 million because of this work. What is the position of those who have paid €76 for monthly tickets and €750 for annual tickets? How will they be dealt with? Where are the buses that will become available? Why are they not on the streets now? Has Irish Rail suddenly purchased a new fleet of buses to deal with the effect of the DART not being run at weekends for the next 18 months? It begs the question as to who is in charge.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time has concluded. I call the Taoiseach. Allow the Taoiseach to reply.

Mr. Kenny

Will the Taoiseach confirm that there will be 24 hour contracts and, as happened in the country, the lines will remain open during the day and closed at night for continuous work? If they can be kept open for two weekends, does that not indicate that a more streamlined way could be found of doing this work? Is this another example of a semi-State company doing its business without clarity of direction from the Minister responsible?

The Taoiseach

The argument is about when the work started and the notice given. I hope there is no argument about the work that needs to be done. This work will take cars off the road and increase the capacity of the DART from 11,000 passengers per hour to 16,000 per hour. The work is necessary. It is a large part of the company's capital programme. To be fair to CIE, I understand it made clear in the spring that the work would start in the autumn although it did not make clear until recent days that it would start now. For that reason, the Minister made the two points that they should avoid December and, if possible, the period until after Christmas because people did not get sufficient notice.

The question most citizens have asked about Luas is why people are not working late into the night and at weekends. In this instance, the work will start after the last DART on a Friday night and continue through the entire weekend until early Monday morning. I do not believe people will quibble with that. The short notice is the issue and I have stated that the Minister has asked that these issues be examined. While there has been an enormous amount of capital expenditure on buses, it would mean CIE having extra routes and additional people working at key times on weekends in those locations but the work has to be done. The Minister will report back on whether it can be adjusted around the Christmas period but there is a significant benefit for commuters once this job is finished.

Mr. Rabbitte

A Cheann Comhairle, there is a convention in the House and required by the House that where a Member misleads the House, he or she takes the first opportunity to correct the record. It would appear that the Taoiseach deliberately misled the House on a number of occasions in respect of a number of matters dealing with the deal with the religious congregations, and I want to raise two of them.

In respect of the matter of the exclusion of the Attorney General and his office from the critical meetings, the Taoiseach said otherwise on a number of occasions in the House. In respect of whether the terms of the indemnity were debated in the House, the Taoiseach said they were. For example, on 12 February of this year he told me that the indemnity was worked out in February. The Committee of Public Accounts was told that the officials did not start work on the indemnity until 19 April. The House collapsed on 24 April and there was only one sitting day between 19 and 24 April. The House was dissolved on 24 April. The redress Bill concluded on 10 April. Negotiations on the terms of the indemnity did not start until 19 April. How could the Taoiseach say on one occasion that the indemnity was worked out in February and on another occasion tell the House that the matter "was discussed repeatedly in the House"?

On the matter of the exclusion of the Attorney General, we know now from both the Comptroller and Auditor General's report and from the then Attorney General that the Taoiseach's statement on 11 February that "The Attorney General and his office was involved throughout the entire period" is untrue. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is now an orphan in Cabinet, disowned by the Taoiseach and his Ministers and abandoned by his own—

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy, your two minutes are concluded.

Mr. Rabbitte

I intend to finish my sentence, Sir. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is now an orphan in Cabinet, disowned by the Taoiseach and abandoned by his party leader. Will the Taoiseach take the opportunity to correct the record, having deliberately misled the House on major matters with regard to this particular deal?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Rabbitte, earlier you accused the Taoiseach of deliberately misleading the House. I did not interrupt you because of the two minute rule. I am now asking you to withdraw the remark that the Taoiseach deliberately misled the House.

Mr. Rabbitte

Are you serious, a Cheann Comhairle?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes. The Deputy knows the rules. If you have an allegation of that nature to make, it can only be made by substantive motion.

Mr. Rabbitte

With the full sense of consciousness about what I am doing, Sir, I am claiming precisely that, and the facts would not allow me to draw any other conclusion.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy, you would have to withdraw the remark that any Member of this House misled it deliberately.

Mr. Rabbitte

A Cheann Comhairle, we know from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform—

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy, we are not having a discussion on it. You either withdraw—

Mr. Rabbitte

We know from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that the Taoiseach's statement that he, and his office, was involved at all times—

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Rabbitte, you will have to withdraw the remark or leave the House.

Mr. Rabbitte

A Cheann Comhairle, do Members on this side of the House have any rights? You are supposed to be the guarantor of rights on this side of the House and I was misled last February and—

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Rabbitte, there will be no discussion on it. In accordance with—

Mr. Rabbitte

—we had to wait for the Comptroller and Auditor General's report to bear me out.

An Ceann Comhairle

The rules of the House—

Mr. Rabbitte

You are now saying that I cannot put that to the Member who misled the House and offer him the opportunity to correct the record.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy, misleading the House is one thing but to accuse a Member of deliberately misleading the House is another.

Ms Shortall

It is a statement of fact.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Rabbitte, you must withdraw the remark or leave the House – it is as simple as that. The choice is yours.

Mr. Rabbitte

Are you saying, a Cheann Comhairle, that you could put a perspective on these events that the Taoiseach accidentally misled the House?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy, the Chair will not get into a discussion.

Mr. Rabbitte

With respect, Sir, you have and you sought to interrupt me twice.

An Ceann Comhairle

No, Deputy. I am telling you that in accordance with all my predecessors, where a Deputy accused another Deputy of telling a lie, they always had to withdraw the accusation or leave the House.

Mr. Rabbitte

I did not say that, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am asking you to withdraw the remark or leave the House.

Mr. Rabbitte

I did not say that.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am asking you to withdraw the remark or leave the House.

Mr. Rabbitte

I did not say that.

An Ceann Comhairle

You said the Deputy deliberately misled the House.

Mr. Rabbitte

That is what I said, and that is what he did.

Ms Burton

That is not a lie.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, and that is exactly the same as telling a lie.

A Deputy

No, it is not.

Mr. Rabbitte

You have no right at all, Sir, to draw such conclusions.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has ruled on the matter, Deputy. The choice is yours.

Mr. Stagg

You are making a new rule.

Mr. Rabbitte

A Cheann Comhairle—

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy, you either withdraw the remark or leave the House.

Mr. Rabbitte

A Cheann Comhairle, you have put me in an entirely invidious position.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy, you know the rules. You are here a long time. All my predecessors have ruled in exactly the same way.

Mr. Rabbitte

To be honest, Sir, I have never been harassed by any of your predecessors in the same fashion that you harass me.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not being harassed. The Chair has been more than lenient in allowing you to discuss the matter at all.

Mr. Rabbitte

A Cheann Comhairle, this is a matter affecting €800 million to €1 billion of taxpayers' money and you will not permit the Taoiseach to answer the charge.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy, you will withdraw the remark or you will leave the House.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Could the Deputy re-phrase the remark?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Rabbitte, you will withdraw the remark unequivocally or you will leave the House.

Mr. Rabbitte

The objective fact of the matter is that the Taoiseach misled the House, and I will leave it at that.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy, you are withdrawing the remark that he deliberately mislead the House.

Mr. M. Higgins

The Deputy is withdrawing the word "deliberately".

An Ceann Comhairle

He is withdrawing the remark that the Taoiseach deliberately misled the House.

Mr. M. Higgins

But not the suggestion.

Mr. Rabbitte

What I have said, Sir, is that the objective fact is that the Taoiseach misled the House and I am prepared, in deference to your persistence, to leave it at that.

An Ceann Comhairle

To withdraw the remark.

The Taoiseach

On the two aspects, I did not mislead the House. I have made this point already. Deputy Rabbitte quoted the start of what I said on 11 February, and he quoted me correctly as saying the Attorney General and his office were involved throughout the period. That was the first line. As Deputy Rabbitte knows, this is a stand alone in its own right, and might suggest a direct contradiction. However, if one reads the whole paragraph, which I intend to do, it is quite clear that I pointed out to the House that the former Minister, Deputy Woods, and the Secretary General held meetings in which the Attorney General was involved. I would like to read the full paragraph if I may and not the cynically edited extract the Deputy raised. On 11 February I stated:

If the party leader will allow me to reply. He does not need any help from Deputy Ryan. The Attorney General and his office was involved throughout the entire period. All of the issues of the indemnity came fully in front of the Government. Deputy Woods who was then the Minister for Education and Science dealt with the issues on the authority of the Government. All of the Departments were involved in most of the discussions. When Deputy Woods and his Secretary General and one of his officials dealt with the meetings they did not need anyone holding their hands. He did as any Minister would.

I made it quite clear the Attorney General was not at all the meetings, so I did not mislead the House deliberately, or in any other way. Deputy Rabbitte picked one line in one paragraph but he left out the rest. I am afraid Deputy Rabbitte knows that is not even clever, never mind smart.

On the issue of whether the matter was discussed on other occasions, it was discussed. I put that on the record last week. It was discussed in the Dáil on 12 and 20 February and on 8 March in the Seanad and on other occasions the matter was referred to. That was made clear last week and I will go through the quotes if necessary, but the Deputy has them, as he has the full quote of the last part. The document or the agreement on the indemnity was drawn up on 30 January and it was effectively agreed then.

Ms Shortall

That is not true.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Shortall, we cannot hear potential leaders. Only Deputy Rabbitte is entitled to ask a question.

The Taoiseach

The workings continued on until June. There are plenty of documents on the issue. As always when I raise this matter with Deputy Rabbitte, I remind him that the sole motivation of the Government was to help the victims and not put them in a position where they had to go to courts and fight cases in the courts one by one and where they would not have got proper redress. To send old people, who had been badly treated by successive Governments, to the courts and not allow them to put their cases, is, and will remain, the central issue. I cannot understand why people want to ignore that.

Mr. Rabbitte

On that last point on helping the victims, the Taoiseach's Government deliberately collapsed the Laffoy commission. I do not know how that is helping the victims. For a number of weeks since this controversy developed, the Taoiseach and some of his Ministers have been saying that the previous rainbow Government declined to meet the people concerned or their organisations. It is completely untrue. The organisations came into existence after the "States of Fear" programme when the Taoiseach's Government was in office. If anybody is trying to be clever, it is the Taoiseach. He is the one who clearly told the House last February, at a time when we did not have the benefit of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, when on four successive days I raised this matter, that – it is in black and white – the "Attorney General and his office was involved throughout the entire period". That is the Taoiseach's statement. That is the sense of everything he tried to say until the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform broke cover. The Taoiseach has now left him swinging from a lamp-post, disowned, abandoned and contemplating his future. That is the reality.

As regards the terms of the indemnity, how can the Taoiseach seriously say to this House it was referred to? That is the way we do business – by referring to it. Mr. Boland of the Department of Education and Science told the Committee of Public Accounts that it did not start to negotiate the terms of the indemnity until 19 April. The Taoiseach has tried to say to my colleague, Deputy Shortall, that the document was presented in January. The Department did not look at or start to deal with the terms of the indemnity until 19 April 2002 and the Taoiseach dissolved the House on 24 April 2002. The redress Act had concluded its passage through both Houses on 10 April 2002. How could we possibly have debated the terms of the indemnity and how can the Taoiseach stand over this way of doing business when he also told this House that there was a record of all meetings? There is no record, contemporaneous notes or transcripts of the critical meetings of 7 November and 7 January, which the Taoiseach knows.

The Taoiseach

I have already given the quote of 12 February where I made it absolutely clear that there were meetings. As far as I recall from looking at the record last week, there were 16 meetings in all. The then Attorney General was involved in 12 of the meetings and was not involved in four of them. We know his office would have liked to have been at all the meetings but—

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

The Taoiseach

—because the talks had broken down at that stage, the Secretary General and the Minister were endeavouring to get the issues back on track. The Deputy is wrong to say the Laffoy commission has been pulled down. The Laffoy commission is completing its report. Then Mr. Seán Ryan, SC, will take over to continue the work. In the meantime, most of the aspects of the commission, other than the investigation end, are working successfully and well. I do not agree with any of the contentions made by Deputy Rabbitte. The key issue in this matter is to work this agreement successfully through so that the individuals will be entitled to their claims.

I do not want to get into an argument about a former Member of the House and I will not mention the then Minister of State's name. However, I will remind Deputy Rabbitte that there were four attempts to have a meeting with the then Minister of State. The programme that RTE started, for Deputy Rabbitte's information, was in the spring of 1996. I was not Taoiseach in the spring of 1996. That was the first RTE programme when this issue started and it was not when I was Taoiseach.

Ms Burton

That was a different television programme.

Mr. Rabbitte

On a point of order, what are my rights, a Cheann Comhairle, as a Member of the House—

Mr. Boyle

The Deputy has no rights.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy wishes to come to the office of the Ceann Comhairle, they will be discussed with you. I call on Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Mr. Rabbitte

What are my rights when a Member of the House denies the record? What are my rights as a Member of the House?

An Ceann Comhairle

We will not discuss the Deputy's rights here. Deputy Rabbitte is being disorderly. I call on Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Mr. Rabbitte

I am trying to assert my rights in the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy is not happy with Standing Orders, he knows the way to change them. I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Mr. Rabbitte

When somebody denies the written record what is one supposed to do in a parliamentary context?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has no control over this. As the Chair has explained, if the Deputy is not satisfied with replies—

Mr. Gormley

Can the Ceann Comhairle quote the Standing Order to which he is referring?

An Ceann Comhairle

I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Mr. Rabbitte

This is grossly unacceptable.

An Ceann Comhairle

I call on Deputy Ó Caoláin. I want to get on with the proceedings.

Mr. Rabbitte

Yes, I know the Ceann Comhairle does. I know exactly what he is trying to do.

Ms Shortall

There is no regard for the truth.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Is the Taoiseach aware of the huge damage that is being done to local communities as a result of the ongoing cuts in community employment schemes? Is he aware that during the course of this year, some 5,000 cuts have taken place? These have affected services for people with disabilities, the elderly, adult education, the maintenance of community centres and other facilities, local transport and child care.

The Minister, Deputy Harney, pledged that schemes designed and focused on the needs of child care and drug treatment would be ring-fenced. Is the Taoiseach aware that the cuts being imposed by the Government are now affecting such schemes dealing with child care and drug treatment despite the Minister's so-called assurance that those areas would be ring-fenced. We have a situation where day care, adult literacy services, meals and transport for the elderly are all being placed at risk as a result of these cuts and attacks on communities.

Is the Taoiseach further aware that these attacks on communities are compounded by the decision to cut the voluntary training opportunities scheme, whereby those seeking educational opportunities are having their child care provisions withdrawn? Does he accept that CE schemes, while designed initially as training and preparatory schemes for entry into long-term employment, have provided a major resource within local communities? They have given new life and opportunities to communities and to the individual participants. Will the Taoiseach undertake in recognition of the important role CE schemes play, to reverse the cuts and ensure that they are placed where they belong – within the communities, guaranteeing opportunity and service?

The Taoiseach

There are a number of aspects about the CE, JI and social economy schemes that are being examined. Deputy Ó Caoláin is correct that the overall figures of participation in the schemes have come down from over 35,000 people five years ago to 20,000 people this year. When one includes the JI and the social economy schemes, it is about 25,000 participants The Minister did give the commitment that the CE places in the health sector, which include personal assistants services, are being maintained at existing levels to ensure continuity of those services. I understand that is the case.

Projects are prioritised based on the services provided. The drugs task force activity and child care provision are ring-fenced. Any reduction in the projects in the RAPID scheme are being given priority. The most in need places have been maintained. There have been difficulties in some of the other areas. There have been a number of cross-departmental meetings endeavouring to see how best to maintain schemes and services that are valuable to the health services. I know that the Irish Wheelchair Association, the Centre for Independent Living and others have made cases which have been looked at across Departments.

CE scheme funding for this year is €274 million, which will provide a participation rate of about 22,500 people. FÁS has stated that to hold the existing position, it would need 25,000 places. Next year's funding will be looked at again in the Estimates over the next month. The case, again, will have to be made for what areas are to be ring-fenced. FÁS argues that ring-fencing is not a good idea because the shortfalls in funding will fall on other categories. One can have some schemes that might not be a priority which are then protected, while others in more beneficial areas are not. That can create difficulties for the schemes.

Issues such as the beneficial schemes, the phasing out of the JI schemes and the long-term unemployed receiving more training places than at present, are all matters that are under examination across Departments. It is hoped, in the context of the Estimates, to alleviate some of the problems that have been created for the CE schemes over the last few months.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Everyone recognises that the CE schemes were far from perfect. However, does the Taoiseach not recognise that they identified an important and valuable niche in terms of community service? The Government decisions on their funding is having a devastating effect, not only on the individual participant, but also on important and valuable service roles within communities throughout the country. Despite his reaffirmation of the ring-fencing with regard to the provision of scheme support in child care and drug treatment, it is not the case. Whatever the Minister's understanding of ring-fencing is, the reality is that it is a far cry from the factual position on the ground.

Is the Taoiseach aware that these cuts are being equally applied to areas of greatest disadvantage where the RAPID and CLÁR programmes are already part of addressing community needs? How can this be justified? There is a clear contradiction in the Government's so-called commitment to these programmes when, at the same time, another Department is actually taking away this valuable service and role.

With regard to a review that has been mentioned time and again, will the Taoiseach indicate to the House what consultations are being undertaken about these schemes? There is no evidence of consultation with scheme organisers or key participants. That is a critical need if a real and worthwhile review is to take place.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy has raised three questions. The Deputy asked if I am aware and agree with the excellent work that takes place within many of the CE schemes throughout the country. Yes, I am aware of that. I acknowledge that they do excellent work in the schemes, particularly in community centres, meals on wheels, disability and health-related areas. That is why the Government is still putting in €274 million in funding to the schemes.

I heard the officials state that not alone are the ring-fences which the Tánaiste requested in place, but in some cases they would rather they were not there. The Deputy said they are not there, but the Tánaiste rightly brought them in to protect the drugs task force areas, the child care ser vice and the RAPID areas, and from that meeting I clearly heard him stating—

Mr. Rabbitte

What RAPID areas?

The Taoiseach

The RAPID areas.

Mr. Rabbitte

That was before the election.

An Ceann Comhairle

The minute has concluded.

The Taoiseach

I will respond very briefly to the third question asked by Deputy Ó Caoláin about the current review of community employment and job initiative programmes. The PPF provides that an overall appraisal of active labour market programmes are carried out. The work has been undertaken under the aegis of the standing committee on the labour market which is chaired by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. That cross-departmental group of senior officials has been asked to consider options for the future of CE, taking into account the link with the provision of community services. We are in the process of meeting the Deputy's request.