Vol. 960 No. 2
6. Deputy Shane Cassells asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will liaise with the stakeholders involved with Claremont stadium in Navan, County Meath, regarding its proposed sale in order for this national athletic facility to continue to serve Irish athletics and local communities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42150/17]
I ask the Minister if he will liaise with the stakeholders involved with Claremont stadium athletics facility in Navan regarding the proposed sale in order to secure this national facility to serve athletics and local communities. I ask the Minister not to read the prepared email he sent during the summer. There are many decent athletics and sporting people listening this morning and I ask the Minister to consider the matter.
I will address this in a way that has arisen from consultation. I will certainly address the Deputy's supplementary questions without reading a script. This matter relates to the private sale of Claremont stadium in Navan. I understand the facility in question has been a voluntarily run social enterprise that is used by many local clubs in the area for sporting and other purposes. Sport Ireland, which is funded by my Department, is the statutory body with responsibility for the development of sport, including the allocation of funding across its various programmes. Sport Ireland channels its funding through the relevant national governing body of sport and through its network of local sports partnerships. My Department or Sport Ireland do not provide funding directly to clubs or organisations for ongoing current expenditure. It would not be appropriate for me to intervene in a case where a particular sporting or social organisation is in financial difficulty.
With regard to capital support for sporting developments, the sports capital programme, SCP, is the Government's primary vehicle to support the development of sports facilities and the purchase of sports equipment. The programme aims to foster an integrated and planned approach to developing sports and physical recreation facilities throughout the country. Under the terms of the SCP, grants are allocated to sporting organisations towards the provision of new facilities, the renovation or extension of existing facilities or the purchase of non-personal sports equipment. It should be noted however, that the sports capital programme cannot be used to purchase land or existing sports facilities. Under the SCP, a number of grants were allocated in the past to community organisations and sports clubs that were using the Claremont stadium. I understand that other public funds also supported the development of the sporting facilities on the site.
I am informed the site of the stadium is on long-term lease from Meath County Council and that the land is zoned as "providing for open space for active and passive recreational amenities". It appears it is the intention of the proposed sale that tenants would not be affected. Whereas it is not appropriate for me to intervene in this matter, I very much hope the issues at the stadium can be resolved without delay to ensure the continued use of the sporting facilities by the local community.
I spoke to the stadium manager and trustee members again this morning. These are people who have dedicated their lives to their community in Navan and around Meath, keeping this facility on the go for over three decades. The stress caused to this volunteer-led organisation is immense. It is somewhat ironic that in yesterday's Budget Statement, the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, cited in particular the capital investment in Páirc Uí Chaoimh as an example of the Government getting involved with capital expenditure, providing sporting facilities in this country, while at the same time we could see Claremont go to the wall. We could see the vultures moving in, hoarding going up and this left in the middle of the town. This is a town of 40,000 people crying out for sport investment but this facility could be let go to the wall. As the Minister stated, it is a volunteer-led organisation that the Department has invested in over the years. For example, it provided an international-style running track and the Belgian team was based there during the Special Olympics, a time of great celebration. What celebration will there be if the hoarding goes up, the gates are locked and the people are left out of the sporting facility in the middle of Navan? There is an opportunity to get involved and make a strong statement this morning that nothing will be allowed to happen to the sporting facility. It would ward off the vultures circling over Claremont stadium.
The Deputy knows I have every sympathy but the problem is that the sports capital funding is not meant for rescuing anybody in financial difficulties, much as we would like to be able to do so. I accept what the Deputy says about the service given through this stadium to the community. I would love to be in a position to help. Claremont stadium is in receipt of funding from Pobal towards staff costs under the community services programme. It currently employs seven people and sponsors five community employment places. The facility is dependent on support from Pobal and community employment, CE, and could not provide the service and programmes without that, according to the board secretary. In recent years, the stadium received funding from an ESB fund to develop the lounge area into a multipurpose training facility. Currently, the focus is on renovating and expanding a training room, upgrading the dressing rooms and creating wheelchair access through funding received from the dormant accounts fund administered by Pobal. Funds will be made available after the current situation is resolved, apparently.
The Minister is right as there are so many groups using the facility. They include Parkvilla FC, the Navan athletics club and community groups such as Midway, Career Start and children's groups. My daughter attends a fashion design course in that stadium. It is used by the entire community and not just the sporting community. Optics are important. On www.daft.ie there is an aerial picture of the ground. It is not meant for other sporting organisations and the aerial shot is to demonstrate the scope of the land for the vultures circling overhead. Optics are important. It would be a statement of particular substance if the Minister would say that we are not going to allow this stadium to go to the wall. No politician in Meath or Navan is going to rezone this area. The vultures are circling and the Minister's comments could be a statement of intent to ward off such prospective clients. The people of Navan stood outside the gates and protested in order to make a statement to the people attending an open showing of the facility. It would be a statement of substance for the Minister to do the same. I asked the Minister this time last year if he would come to Navan to examine the rail line proposals. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle was in the Chair at the time.
The Minister solemnly pledged that he would come, but he never has. Would it not be great if he would honour that and come to Navan and, at the same time, actually meet the people involved at Claremont stadium and ensure it remains open as a viable sporting social community facility, and not just for the people in Navan and Meath as it is also used by Athletics Ireland and athletes from throughout the country?
The Deputy has made a very good case but he must accept the explanations I think I have given to him. I have already received representations from other Deputies. The office of the Minister, Deputy Regina Doherty, has been in contact about this issue, as has Deputy McEntee's office. We will respond to the Deputy also. The responses to those representations have not yet been finalised but, obviously, the Deputy is not the only person in the area who supports this very worthy stadium.
I was not claiming to be.
It is something which we should recognise has a lot of public support and has done an enormous amount of work for the community there. As I said in my opening statement, while we recognise this is a very worthy cause and the loss of this to the community in Navan would be very difficult, I do not wish to involve myself in an operation which is in financial difficulties.
7. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport when he expects to be in a position to identify his priorities in respect of the sports capital programme, major or minor; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42152/17]
This question relates to the extent to which the Minister is hopeful of being able to expand on the sports capital grants and when he is likely to be in a position to make an announcement on allocations.
I acknowledge Deputy Durkan has previously raised this matter and it is one of serious interest to him, as it probably is to every Member of the House.
The sports capital programme is the primary means of providing Government funding to sport and community organisations at local, regional and national level throughout the country. More than 10,000 projects have benefitted from sports capital funding since 1998, and €911 million of expenditure has gone into sports capital. The fruits of the sports capital programme can be seen in every community throughout the country. It has left a very positive footprint and we certainly want to continue that trend.
The programme was opened at the start of the year and closed on 23 February. By that stage, 2,320 applications had been received and the total value of the applications was €155 million. With a budget of €30 million, this means it is very difficult to make a successful application. With this in mind, my plan was to try to increase the amount available. At present, we hope to be able to allocate more than the €30 million to ensure as many clubs as possible are as successful as possible.
Departmental officials have been working very hard on the programme and are going through the applications. As the Deputy can appreciate, the 3,320 local and regional applications make this a very difficult task, but the process is nearing finalisation.
It is important to point out that in making capital investment in sports facilities, we are trying to find a way to cater for large-scale projects. The Deputy is aware there is a cap of €150,000 on the local sports capital programme and a cap of €200,000 on the regional programme. In the case of many projects, this is just not enough to enable them to be completed and consequently we are trying to find a mechanism to facilitate such projects in the future.
I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. In the context of the evaluation now taking place, to what extent does he foresee an ability to respond to the major requirements, as well as to the smaller projects with the limited cap on them? I do not want the Minister of State to make the announcement just now, but at the same time, is he able to give some indication to those who have made applications under the two headings as to whether they will be in for reasonably fair consideration in the current year?
The larger projects have been done on an ad hoc basis to date, and we are trying to find a more streamlined system and a more definite mechanism for progressing them. A large-scale scheme would be a far better way of doing things and there is capital provision for this. This is positive and will give organisations the certainty of planning and give them the ability to look at their long-term plans in a more certain way.
We are nearing completion of the current programme and I hope in the coming weeks it will be completed. I can tell the Deputy there has been progress on the rate of invalidation. In the 2012 programme, the rate was approximately 48% and that dropped by 14% and 15% in those programmes so it was around one third. We are now down at around 20%, which is positive. It is still too much and very disappointing for people who find themselves in that scenario. Over the years, the people I have met in my constituency who were most disappointed with regard to the sports capital programme have not been the people who were unsuccessful but those who were deemed to be invalid. This time around, the officials tried very hard to streamline the process, and it did have results and reduced the rate of invalidation from roughly one third to one fifth. It is still too much and we would like to try to streamline further any future programme to make it as simple as possible for the volunteers, who are availing of this very popular and very worthwhile project.
My next question was the degree to which the application system can be refined further, with a view to eliminating the pitfalls that have been the cause of the most obvious disqualifications in the past. That type of disappointment has caused a lot of concern among local communities. There is another allocation in respect of swimming pools. To what extent does of this come under the Minister of State's remit?
In compliance with Standing Orders, I call Deputy Troy.
Will those who have made invalid applications only be made aware their application was invalid at the time the scheme is announced or have they already been made aware that they are invalid? There were some rumours going around that potentially there would be an increase in the funding envelope subsequent to yesterday's budget. Will the Minister of State confirm whether there has been an increase in the overall budget? If there is an increase in funding, the Minister of State will be able to look after more applications.
The local authority swimming pool programme is a separate programme, and it is a very positive one, and there is provision for that. I was in Dunmanway in County Cork recently to see one of the projects that has been recently completed. It is a really good programme and very positive. The nature of swimming pools is they are very expensive, so we do not get as many projects for the same amount of money, unfortunately.
To answer Deputy Troy's question, one of the big problems with the sports capital programme over the years is that it has not been annualised, so the clubs have a difficulty in planning. It is like when a bus comes along and everybody tries to get on it because they are not quite sure when the next one will arrive. We are trying to annualise the programme, but it is not quite as simple as one might think to do so because an awful lot of money being drawn down at present is from previous rounds from two or three years ago. That backlog is a concern I am trying to address. If we were to allocate the €30 million to the €155 million worth of applications, we would leave a lot of people without an allocation. These same people will apply again in the next round. There is an awful lot of duplication in terms of the Department dealing with the same applications, and the volunteers themselves completing the applications again. There is an awful lot of repetition. We are looking at finding a way of trying to clear as many outstanding applications as possible. I hope we will have a very positive outcome from the budget in this regard, to cater for more applicants than we had originally intended. This would be good in terms of getting those people out of the way in respect of duplicating applications.
8. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his views on the decision of the NTA to award a company (details supplied) 10% of existing Dublin Bus routes; and the way in which this will improve the services for persons that use these routes. [42136/17]
I would love to hear the Minister's views on the decision by the National Transport Authority, NTA, to award Go-Ahead, a British based global bus company, 10% of Dublin bus routes and not Dublin Bus. The Minister's views are probably limited because in response to anything to do with the NTA, he usually says that it is the authority's business and not his, but I would love to hear his own views and not some reply that has been written for him by an official on the awarding of this contract to Go-Ahead.
Could I correct the Deputy? The views that are scripted are not pre-written by officials. They are written after consultation between me and officials. They are written and re-written, particularly with the Deputy in mind, and it is the same in this case.
Lucky you, Bríd.
Lucky me.
I ask the Deputy to take that in the spirit in which it is meant. The first reply is pre-written. The subsequent ones will not be, but they are written as a result of a discussion between me and the officials.
If I was not lenient, there would be no time to reply.
Under the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 it is a statutory function of the National Transport Authority, NTA, to determine the appropriate mix of directly awarded and competitively tendered bus services. Arising from this, it is the NTA's role to conduct the public procurement process relating to its decision to tender out of 10% of the PSO bus network. In this regard, the NTA has been undertaking a number of competitive procurement processes and, in August, announced its decision that it had selected Go-Ahead as the preferred bidder in the competition to operate 24 routes - 23 existing plus one new route - in the Dublin metropolitan area.
The NTA intends to ensure that customers will experience improved service levels across all of the routes in question, and it will achieve this through a variety of means. The quality of service is measurable and therefore the NTA is setting out in the contract with the new operator the customer service levels that are expected. It will use the contract terms to drive up levels of customer service. All services operated under the contract will continue to be regulated by the NTA as they are today. This means that Leap, the free travel pass, real time information, and the national journey planner, etc., will all continue to operate on these services. The contracts will provide for enhanced frequencies and strengthened punctuality targets and result in improved bus services for the travelling public. There will also be the introduction of one new additional route from Citywest to UCD. The NTA has the statutory powers to determine fare levels, and the NTA will continue using its fares determination process to rationalise and improve the fare structure across all the different operators in the regulated bus market, including the new operator.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Public transport passenger journeys are growing, with Dublin Bus experiencing strong growth which is forecast to continue. That growth will allow Dublin Bus continue to expand its services in tandem with the roll-out of Go-Ahead's routes. It is well recognised that good public transport is a key enabler of both social inclusion and economic progress and this announcement forms part of this Government's commitment to improving our public transport system and services.
We are always looking for ways to improve our public transport services and the NTA's selection of a preferred bidder in the Dublin metropolitan competition forms part of that process.
That is a more substantial reply than the one I thought I would get. However, the main point is that the level of investment put into this service will not make the service more competitive. What makes the service more competitive is from the point of view of Go-Ahead, not from the point of view of the Minister, this State or the passengers who use the buses. Go-Ahead will make it more competitive because it will drive down the labour costs, wages and conditions of its workers.
I put 11 questions about this contract to the NTA and I have the replies here. With the exception of two, they all state that it cannot give me the information because it is commercially sensitive. The cost element, the labour costs, the differences in cost between the two, and the logistical difficulties are all commercially sensitive issues. I asked if it could give me a detailed analysis of how the agency decided that Go-Ahead was better than Dublin Bus but it said that was commercially sensitive. As a parliamentarian, it is very difficult to get an answer, on behalf of the public and those who work for Dublin Bus, about what is going on. I contend, as do many people, that what is really happening is an attempt to privatise the bus service, drive down wages and conditions, and drive a wedge into a very well unionised workplace. There is no evidence that privatisation drives down costs or improves efficiency. We only have to look at the bin service and the way the cost of electricity has soared.
I believe I am right in saying that the international experience indicates that introducing competitive tension into our public service obligation, PSO, bus market, that is a mixture of direct award and competitively tendered contracts, should allow us to capture potential benefits as regards value for money and in terms of the use of taxpayers' money in securing the provision of PSO services. The Government, as apart from the NTA, must look at how we spend taxpayers' money and get value for money. I hope we can agree, at least in principle, that the introduction of the 10% bus market opening provides such an opportunity.
I have to repeat, because it is repeated in the House so often, that there is no sinister underhand privatisation agenda here.
It is not underhand. It is blatant. There is nothing underhand about it.
What is happening is an attempt to improve efficiencies, improve frequencies on the routes compared to what is happening now, and the introduction of one new additional route, Citywest to UCD, in addition to the ones already listed. It must be to the advantage to the passenger public if we respond to the demand by increasing the numbers of operators of bus services.
I will drive a coach and horses through everything the Minister said because the Dublin Bus tender came in at a lower price than the Go-Ahead tender. What competition can Go-Ahead engage in? Can it reduce the cost of fuel, hiring, servicing or maintaining a fleet? It cannot. The only costs it can reduce are labour costs and conditions within the company.
In case the NTA did not tell the Minister, the tender from Dublin Bus indicated that it reached 98% of the targets on all routes. The NTA's determination level is 90%, so it went way above that. It reached 98% above the NTA's own targets. There is no reason whatsoever to award this contract to another company other than Dublin Bus other than there is an agenda of privatisation. The Minister is right. There is no underhanded attempt at privatisation. It is blatant, and the Minister is pursuing it. The NTA is driving the Minister to pursue it. Somebody is answering the Minister's questions wrongly because he does not have the right facts. Dublin Bus came in cheaper and can provide a better service, and it has done for years.
I can assure the Deputy that there are no plans whatsoever to tender for more than 10% of the services in the future. The current plans are to do this, and God knows this has taken an extremely long time already. We are only talking about a few routes when we are doing this, and we will review it to see how it works. If it does not work, I am happy to come back to this House when it is operating and say it is not working. That is exactly what we will do, but it is an experiment which is well worth taking. There will be no redundancies as a result of this particular project. Employees are free to transfer to the new operator if they wish.
They are not mad.
However, they are not obliged to transfer and can remain with their current employer. They have that option.
9. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if the IAA remains the first choice as competent authority under EU Regulation 598/14; if not, the reason therefor; and when the decision will be finalised in the context of the ongoing development of the new runway at Dublin Airport. [42143/17]
This time last year, the Minister promised me that legislation would be before us by Christmas to give effect to EU Regulation 598/2014 installing the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, as the competent authority dealing with aircraft noise. In the year since then, the Minister has told us that it was the organisation best placed to do that job even though nothing is in place to bring that any nearer to completion. Is that still the Minister's preference, and when will we see legislation or a statutory instrument to give it effect?
I thank Deputy Daly for the chance to answer this question and update to the House on this very important issue. As Deputy Daly will be aware, there is a certain repetition in terms of what is happening here today. In September 2016, I announced my intention to designate the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, as the competent authority under EU Regulation 598/2014, and so charge it with responsibility for managing aircraft noise.
The proposed nomination of the authority for this function was in line with the approach in many other European member states, and it was broadly consistent with previous practice in assigning aviation regulatory functions to the IAA.
This proposed approach was supported by legal advice at the time. It was pursued by my Department as the most straightforward way of activating the regulation and facilitating its timely implementation in Ireland, which is in everyone’s interest. The function was to be assigned to the existing regulatory division in the IAA and was to be managed on a functionally independent basis from the commercial activities of the IAA in the provision of air navigation services.
On foot of the most recent legal advice of senior counsel engaged by the Office of the Attorney General, it is clear that this approach is no longer advisable. Case law at European level has now led to a more strict interpretation of what constitutes functional independence within an organisation. The necessary staffing, reporting, accountability and funding arrangements required to meet the new benchmark of functional independence simply meant that the IAA was no longer a viable option. In effect, the requirements to ensure the independent exercise of the competent authority role would not be consistent with the principles of good corporate governance of the IAA as a whole.
I have already instructed my Department to re-engage with the Departments of Housing, Planning and Local Government and Communications, Climate Action and the Environment as a matter of urgency to consider the possible options for assignment of this role to an existing State body. I will talk to my two Cabinet colleagues and will advise the Deputy once a decision is made.
Arising from the latest legal advice, the Deputy will be also-----
We are already over time.
I will just finish-----
No, the balance-----
I now intend to implement the legislative changes-----
I am being too lenient and that is the problem.
-----mainly and probably wholly, through primary legislation.
The balance of the reply can be included in the Official Report.
I will use it in the second part because it is a very important-----
Perhaps the Minister should adopt that practice from now on.
I feel almost embarrassed for the Minister and the unenviable position he is in because this is a catastrophic failure on the part of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. I could paper my house with the amount of replies I have received telling me that the IAA was best placed to be the competent authority to implement this regulation. In June the Minister told me the Attorney General was drafting and was about to sign off on the seventh version of draft regulations to give that effect. He said he expected that to happen in a week's time. That was the new Attorney General who has obviously stood on its head the advice of the old Attorney General. Now we find out, a year and a half down the road, that we are in the lap of the gods as to what alternative authority will be put in place to deal with aircraft noise. The regulation is supposed to protect airport communities but we know the DAA intends to hijack it to undermine the conditions restricting aircraft noise. This is a huge issue for the airport communities and they will be absolutely shocked to their core to hear the response from the Minister today. I feel sorry for him, having to give that response.
The Deputy should not feel sorry for me. I am frustrated and extremely disturbed by the fact that this is taking so long and I apologise for that. However, I cannot do anything other than follow the legal advice I am being given. That it is taking a long time is something I would not like to see repeated in relation to other issues.
The Attorney General had previously advised that the legislation could be substantially implemented by a statutory instrument under the European Communities Act. However, arising from the latest legal advice, the Deputy will be interested to know that I now intend to implement the legislative changes mainly, and probably wholly, through primary legislation. This is as a result of legal questions which were raised in the drafting process and takes account of developments since previous advice was given, not least that there are matters already before the courts in relation to the new runway at Dublin Airport. The latest legal advice is that the more secure approach now is to proceed on the basis of primary legislation. I clearly have no option but to follow this advice. While I am deeply frustrated at the delay to which this gives rise, it will of course mean the House will have the opportunity to examine in detail the implementing measures.
What adds to the shock in this scenario is the fact that we actually highlighted to the Department the potential conflict of interest and the fact that some of the decisions that were being taken in Europe might lead to the IAA not being the best choice We are obviously very happy that primary legislation will be the vehicle to deliver these changes but it will be of huge concern to the airport communities that the Department has not, as yet, pinpointed an alternative competent authority.
Last week two Garda cars arrived at the homes of Traveller families living on DAA lands with an eviction notice for this week, telling them to get off that land. There is no alternative accommodation identified for these people as of yet. The runway development is gathering apace and the lives of the surrounding communities are being massively impacted but we do not have in place any legislative structure for a competent authority to benefit those communities. It is incredibly worrying. The Minister very kindly offered to meet those Traveller families previously but at the time I said it was not necessary. However, given the length of time that has passed and the very precarious position they are now in, I would ask him to meet them. It is quite urgent now.
I will meet them, certainly. If they have a cause with which I can assist them in any way, I am happy to meet them.
In terms of who will be the next competent authority, I do not have the answer to that at the moment but I know we are moving with a great deal of speed and urgency to look at the various alternatives which were also looked at previously. These would include An Bord Pleanála, the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other bodies or possibly a mixture. It is very important that we do this urgently but also that we get it right so that it is not open to challenge.
I sympathise fully with the difficulties of the local communities to which Deputy Daly referred. The uncertain situation in which they find themselves at the moment as a result of this legal difficulty is unacceptable and I hope it will not be repeated.
Deputy Daly and then Deputy Troy.
I thought I had my time but I am more than happy to come in again. Can I?
No, you cannot if you have been in a third time. I misunderstood the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Deputy Troy, please.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity to contribute. This is bizarre and farcical. Last December, when we asked a similar question the Minister said he was embarrassed by the delay. We are now ten months further on and I would hate to see the Minister's level of embarrassment now. This is a total and utter failure on the Minister's part. Only two weeks ago I brought up this issue during a topical issues debate and even then the Minister was still peddling the line that the IAA was the preferred competent authority. It is not good enough for the DAA which wants to progress the development of a key piece of infrastructure for this country. It is also not good enough for the residents, as Deputy Daly has highlighted, that even today, the Minister is unable to inform the House as to who the competent authority will be in terms of the regulation of noise at the airport. It is not good enough. The Minister said he will progress this with a great deal of speed and urgency. All I can say is that I hope the speed and urgency is a lot different from that which was promised 12 months ago.
Has the Minister anything to add?
I have. In fairness to Deputy Troy, a lot of what he has said is fair comment. However, this is certainly not something for which I am going to take responsibility. What I take responsibility for is-----
Very little-----
-----accepting the legal advice. I accepted it last year in good faith but it has now changed as a result of certain happenings in the European Court. That is something which I also have to accept. I do not like it and no more than Deputy Troy, I do not like the delay. I do not like the delays in the Attorney General's office or the changes of mind in that office but I have to accept them. That it has taken a long time is something which is deeply frustrating, not just for Deputy Troy but for everybody involved and for the communities. At the end of the day, however, if the legal advice tells me I must do certain things in these circumstances, I must take that advice and I will do so.
Question No. 11 is in the name of Deputy Paul Murphy.
Questions Nos. 10, 22 and 56 have been grouped together. One of those questions is mine - No. 22.
Questions Nos.10, 22 and 56 are to be taken together. Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin tabled Question No.10 but she is not present in the Chamber.
I am here for Question No. 22
The Deputy's question is not meant to be taken unless the first questioner is present. Deputy O'Loughlin is not present, but as Deputy Collins is on her feet she can go on.
10. Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the intervention he will take if Irish Rail workers decide to strike in October 2017; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42147/17]
22. Deputy Joan Collins asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his views on the potential pending strike by railway workers in Iarnród Éireann. [42064/17]
56. Deputy Brendan Ryan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will approach the dispute between Irish Rail and its workers in a different and more engaged manner than he did previous disputes with Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann with a view to resolving the dispute before industrial action is taken; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42159/17]
I wish to ask the Minister his view on the potential pending strike by railway workers in Iarnród Éireann, who are currently balloting for strike action. I want the Minister's view on this because it has been well-flagged that Iarnród Éireann has been under serious financial strain. Since 2014 the company has been down €160 million; last year there were problems again and it had to go looking for extra funding. The Minister has on his desk a report saying that Irish Rail should be reimbursed approximately €125 million to compensate for the funding shortfall from 2010 to 2016. The Minister has had this report on his desk since January. Why has he not intervened to prevent the company from using this debt as a means to avoid paying the wages pursued?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 22 and 56 together.
I refer the Deputies to my reply to Priority Question No. 5 which I answered earlier.
As I already mentioned, I kept my commitment to meet with trade unions in the transport sector and we had a very useful exchange on 10 July. I recognise that trade unions have concerns about issues of policy and that those concerns deserve to be listened to. However, my position then and now is that it is not appropriate for me to be involved in industrial relations negotiations.
I will not intervene in areas where it is not appropriate for a Minister to intervene. I will not dictate to management and unions an agreement that only they can craft, because it relates to issues that only they have an insight into. The Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, and the Labour Court are ready and able to assist both parties in coming to that agreement.
Industrial relations and pay are a matter for the company and its employees. Pay disputes have to be solved by engagement between an employer and its staff. My hope is that both unions and the company reflect on the discussions that have taken place over the last number of months and renew engagement under the auspices of the WRC with a view to addressing the company's internal issues.
Go raibh maith agat. Tá an t-am caite, tá brón orm.
That is not really good enough. The Minister has had on his desk since last January a report stating that €125 million should be given to Irish Rail because of work done between 2010 and 2016. The Minister can indeed pay this, which would alleviate the problems currently faced by Iarnród Éireann and prevent the company from using that financial problem as an excuse not to pay its workers, thus forcing them into balloting for industrial action. It is outrageous.
Sin deireadh leis na ceisteanna don Aire Iompair, Turasóireachta agus Spóirt.
We only got through ten questions today and I had both Question Nos. 11 and 12. We only got through ten because the Minister was, in fairness, trying to give full answers but was verbose in doing so.
There are time limits if people would abide by them
They have to be abided by then.
I am sorry Deputy but I was not here. Táimid ag dul ar aghaidh anois go dtí Ceisteanna ó na Cinnirí faoi bhunordú 29.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.
