Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 Feb 2023

Vol. 1032 No. 6

Ceisteanna ó Cheannairí - Leaders' Questions

Deputy Pearse Doherty

Diúltaíodh suas le 12,000 saoránach den Stát seo, go leor acu faoi mhíchumas trom, ó thaobh an liúntais a bhí i dteideal dóibh mar gheall ar an míchumas a bhí orthu. Diúltaíodh é seo dóibh mar thoradh ar straitéis a bhí fuar, straitéis chalma, straitéis gan croí, a forbraíodh i gcroílár an Rialtais - Rialtas ina raibh Tánaiste féin mar pháirt agus mar bhall sinsearach. Up to 12,000 citizens of this State, many of them with profound disabilities, were denied their entitlement to a modest allowance paid to them in recognition of their disability. They were denied this as a result of a cold, callous and heartless strategy developed at the heart of government. This was a Cabinet of which the Tánaiste was a senior member as Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time. The decisions the Government took at the time are laid bare for all of us to see in secret documents that have been reported on. The Tánaiste was party to the strategy. He was party to agreeing the strategy as a senior member of the Government and Cabinet at that time.

We now know that in July 2009 the Tánaiste and his Government colleagues were presented with a memo from the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. It made it clear the State was unlikely to defend cases by or on behalf of those who had their disability payments illegally withdrawn from them. The memo they were presented with went on to state that a comprehensive trawl could be done of HSE records over the 30 years to determine the level of exposure to the State but the Minister advised the Tánaiste and his colleagues against doing this as it would be unlikely to escape media attention or speculation and could generate further claims that otherwise would not have been made.

The strategy of the Government was to conceal the fact there was no legal basis to denying these payments to persons with disabilities and to do nothing that would give rise to awareness to these individuals of their legal entitlements to a modest allowance in recognition of their disability. The strategy was deliberate, it was calculated and it was developed at a Cabinet of which the Tánaiste was a member to conceal from some of the most vulnerable citizens, namely those with disabilities in the care of the State, their legal entitlements. The following year, in 2010, again while he was a member of the Cabinet, he and his Cabinet colleagues were asked to agree to continue with the strategy. At that time he knew this denial of payments was unlawful and, again, he acceded to this. He was party to the decision and the Government agreed to it. The Tánaiste knew the right thing to do. How do we know this? We can see it in the memo. It is contained there. It was to establish a repayment scheme to right the wrong that was done but the Tánaiste and the Government decided against it. Not only that, they decided to do everything possible to ensure those entitled to these payments would never find out about their entitlements.

It is very hurtful for so many families to find that Government after Government knew these payments were being withheld unlawfully and that a deliberate and cold-hearted strategy was developed at the heart of Government. Will the Tánaiste explain to the House and, most importantly, to those families why he was part of this? Knowing that the legal advice he got in the memo in 2009 was that these cases could not be defended, how does he justify continuing to deny these payments to the individuals and deciding to do nothing that would raise awareness, either in the media or among the wider public, that would alert people to their legal entitlements? Please explain that to all of us.

The Tánaiste

With regard to the nursing homes issue and the disability allowance, how they evolved was of an historic nature. The fundamental problem was that the public policy was transparent from the outset in respect of disability allowance and nursing home payments, going right back to the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Public policy was very transparent in respect of nursing homes. People paid a contribution and so forth. This was by virtue of regulations that had been put into place. Many decades later it transpired that those regulations were not consistent with the primary Act. That was the fundamental flaw. At that time the Government of the day took a decision to retrospectively pay back in a repayment scheme the payments taken from those availing of public nursing homes.

With regard to the disabled person's maintenance allowance, a similar situation pertained in respect of the public policy being very transparent. That allowance was introduced in the first instance to provide for people who were on very low incomes when living independently. Once they went into residential care those payments were discontinued. This carried on for quite a long period and was publicly transparent. A case then emerged. It was the then Minister, the late Seamus Brennan, during the Government to which the Deputy referred, who corrected it. He took the decision that residents would be allowed to retain their domiciliary care allowance in a residential setting or a hospital. This was eventually rectified in the 2000s. By the way, it is something that has not been rectified in Northern Ireland. To this day, someone in a hospital or residential care in Northern Ireland for longer than four weeks gets a reduction. This was a public policy issue. The problem was that again the secondary legislation was wrongly drafted and inconsistent with the primary Act of 1970.

Generally, a Government habitually gets updated, perhaps every six months, on what are called sensitive litigation cases or cases of major litigation. There could be 30 cases at any one time to which the Government is alerted. That list is culled from a further list of approximately 200 cases of litigation against the State in the Office of the Attorney General. I refer the Deputy to the fact that 20 years ago the Government established the State Claims Agency and took medical negligence and personal injuries cases out of the realm of the political arena. The State Claims Agency on behalf of the State decides, rightly or wrongly or insensitively or sensitively, the determination of how the State defends various cases.

The net point in respect of this is that the focus of that Government was to improve substantially disability allowance payments in the 2000s and to use the resources for that generation. That call will always be made. In the past two and a half years, the Government has committed to approximately €6 billion in retrospective payments in three or four areas. Issues will arise and calls have to be made in respect of the needs of the current and future generations in terms of the allocation of resources. There will be good times and bad for public finances, and economies are cyclical. How one allocates these resources is a fundamental issue. At any one time there can be up to 30 sensitive cases before the Government. Ultimately, the Oireachtas and the Government of the day have to make decisions in this respect and not all of them are palatable or in any way desirable.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

There was no apology or no admission that the Tánaiste was wrong. Yesterday the Taoiseach stood where the Tánaiste is and said the State did not have a leg to stand on. He said that because we have the memos. In 2009, the Tánaiste was given legal advice as a member of the Cabinet that said the State would be extremely unlikely to be able to defend the case. We have other memos that state the regulations were without legal foundation. They were unlawful. Let us cut to the chase. These individuals were unlawfully denied their payments by the State. That is crystal clear now. The Tánaiste was a member of the Cabinet that agreed to this strategy. He was asked in 2010 as a member of Cabinet to continue to agree to the strategy of the HSE denying all claims for back payments, despite the fact he knew they were unlawful at the time.

He should not try to fob it on the State Claims Agency or allocations of resources. This involves people who, in some cases, have profound disabilities who were in the care of the State. They expect their Government to stand up for them and advocate for them. The Government preyed on their vulnerability and stated it would not set up a repayment scheme unless the floodgates opened and more claims came forward. How does the Tánaiste justify this? Does he accept he was informed in 2009 and 2010 on these matters? How does he justify, knowing that it was unlawful, continuing to deny these individuals their payments and not taking any action even to identify the exposure of the State in case these vulnerable citizens became aware of their legal entitlement?

The Tánaiste

It is my understanding, by the way, that the 2009 memo was withdrawn from that Cabinet meeting. It would have been circulated but it would have been withdrawn, so there was no decision at that Cabinet meeting-----

Deputy Pearse Doherty

You were informed. You got it.

The Tánaiste

-----in respect of that legal strategy but the more fundamental point is, as I said, there is a range right now of up to 30 litigation cases that will come before the Cabinet in an updated form.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

How many of them are-----

The Tánaiste

That is a culling of 200 cases. Let us be honest that all of them, or quite a significant number, will be sensitive. As an Opposition Member, if the Deputy is presented with any one of them I know what his answer will be: to pay it out 100% because that has been his stock answer the whole way for the last three years.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

When you are told it is unlawful-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy-----

The Tánaiste

There will be legal advices coming but the key point that ultimately we all have to decide-----

Deputy David Cullinane

The legal advice is the Government has not a leg to stand on.

The Tánaiste

-----in respect of-----

Deputy Pearse Doherty

The legal advice is it was unlawful.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Through the Chair.

The Tánaiste

Are we saying-----

Deputy Ivana Bacik

Yes.

The Tánaiste

-----going forward we have an infinite resource base and that the current taxpayer and current generations will consistently have to pay for historic mistakes-----

Deputy Pearse Doherty

We want to know why the Government denied them.

The Tánaiste

-----or historic wrongs?

Deputy Pearse Doherty

It was told they were unlawful.

The Tánaiste

I am putting the question to the Deputy.

Deputy David Cullinane

How about not acting illegally in the first place?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please, through the Chair.

The Tánaiste

I would argue that is a key, fundamental point in terms of the allocation of resources.

Deputy David Cullinane

How about not acting illegally?

The Tánaiste

It is not fobbing anything off, Deputy, it is just putting the reality that-----

Deputy Pearse Doherty

We know where Government allocated the resources in the 2000s. It gave them to the banks.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies, please. A Thánaiste, táimid thar am. Go raibh maith agat.

The Tánaiste

It is the reality that confronts any Government at any particular time as we move forward.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

The Government put €30 billion into Anglo in the same period.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Go raibh maith agaibh.

The Tánaiste

Which the Deputy supported.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

It was unlawful. What the Government did was unlawful.

The Tánaiste

Deputy Doherty voted for it.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

The Tánaiste will not even apologise and accept what the Government did was unlawful.

Deputy Niall Collins

The Deputy has not apologised for it.

The Tánaiste

He supported it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Could we please do it through the Chair, with a little respect?

We move on. Ag bogadh ar aghaidh anois go dtí Páirtí an Lucht Oíbre agus An Teachta Bacik.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Since the outset of the terrible war in Ukraine and the brutal invasion by Russia nearly a year ago, we in Labour, alongside groups like the Ukraine Civil Society Forum, have been calling consistently for a more co-ordinated approach by Government to the housing of refugees and people seeking international protection here. We have called especially for a single and clear co-ordinated point of contact and centralised systems for managing the State response to this crisis. Back in December, it appeared as though our calls had been heard and we anticipated real change would come, but not so, it seems. Despite the appointment of the Minister of State, Deputy Joe O’Brien, who is doing his best alongside the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O'Gorman, and his Department, we are still seeing the locating of housing and provision of resources for those fleeing war and hardship being done ad hoc by the Government. Despite that change in December there is still this ad hoc approach with insufficient communication with Opposition parties, local public representatives or communities offering solidarity.

I agree with the Minister, Deputy O’Gorman, when he says "no level of consultation" would change the views of some on housing refugees in their areas. What is needed is a centralised approach from Government to getting information out to local communities in a timely way when new accommodation is being opened to enable the provision of support to new residents in their area. Such a system would facilitate and support the amazing welcome shown across so many communities across the country, in both rural and urban areas, for those who seek refuge here.

It is undeniable there are sinister actors who are trying to further a far-right agenda in all this. A small number of people are seeking to exploit the information vacuum to sow fear and distrust in local communities. We have seen some awful reports of intimidation of families and children by protesters. This week we saw disruption of a Labour public meeting and our public representatives threatened for expressing solidarity with refugees, so this is a very scary time.

Those who engage in racist attacks must be condemned outright by all of us, but the Government has a responsibility here too. So far, we are not seeing sufficient cross-departmental support for the efforts of the Department of the Minister, Deputy O’Gorman. We especially need to see more from the Department of Housing, Heritage and Local Government and more from the Tánaiste's Department of Defence in the form of the repurposing of barracks across the country. We are not even seeing sufficient resourcing for the international protection accommodation services, IPAS, to ensure it has capacity to provide accommodation. What will change? At the very least, will we see the allocation of additional resources to IPAS, perhaps the appointment of a special Minister in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and a coherent, NPHET-style cross-departmental response co-ordinated by the Taoiseach with a CMO figure to take responsibility and act as a point person on this? Will we see a public information campaign and allocation of resources to communities to ensure supports can be rolled out for those who come here seeking refuge and supports to the local communities who wish to offer the céad míle fáilte to them?

The Tánaiste

There is a cross-Departmental approach and a Cabinet sub-committee chaired by the Taoiseach with a range of Departments and Ministers attending. Prior to Christmas, former Limerick city manager Conn Murray was appointed to co-ordinate the work on the accommodation side. It must be acknowledged this is by any distance the largest humanitarian operation ever undertaken by the State. We have never had such a level of refugees fleeing war coming into the country. People continue to arrive from Ukraine. It is quite shocking and I appreciate the Deputy's solidarity with the people of Ukraine. The Russian attack has been vicious, targeted against civilians and deliberately designed to create a migration crisis, along with an energy crisis and so on.

Ireland has responded well to the Ukrainian refugee crisis, with about 72,000 people now benefitting from temporary protection in Ireland. About 15,000 international protection applicants have arrived here. Overall, we have accommodated about 73,000 in total, between Ukrainians and international protection applicants. The greatest pressure is on accommodation for the latter. My own Department has made Kilbride Army Camp available for international protection applicants. It had previously been available for Ukrainian refugees as a transit location. I am not clear what the Deputy means by the repurposing of barracks. There has been a significant policy over the last number of decades of closure of barracks and there is investment going into barracks for the purposes of the military. It is important we acknowledge the role of our Defence Forces and the importance of not undermining them in this process, but they are available to help and assist in any former barracks in standing up accommodation, for example. That facility has been made available to the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and I have made that very clear.

On the communication issue, we acknowledge there can be better communication in respect of some aspects of this. The €50 million we have allocated to a community fund is very important and I would like to see that done strategically in response to genuine needs within communities who have been very welcoming and who have large numbers of refugees and international protection applicants in their areas. That fund will be under the Minister for Rural and Community Development. It is an important fund for engaging with communities who have been very responsive. I pay tribute to many of the schools, people in education and teachers, who have gone to exceptional levels to work with Ukrainian children and young people on their educational needs, and I have witnessed that at first hand myself.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

I am, frankly, disappointed by the Tánaiste's response. He has listed figures and mentioned the Cabinet sub-committee but as he said himself this is an unprecedented challenge, due to the scale of it, and we are not seeing from the Government the sort of scaled-up response required. We in the Opposition who are seeking to show solidarity are often finding out about plans in communities after the far right does and we want to work with communities to show support. I engaged with protesters seeking information in my constituency but I did not have information to provide to them. We need to see a more co-ordinated response from Government, a centralised point of contact and clear evidence of the cross-departmental approach that will give the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth the support it clearly needs.

The response I and others are getting to parliamentary questions is confirming the lack of support from other Government Departments for the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. We are seeing clear evidence of lack of capacity in IPAS to address this unprecedented challenge. We must ensure there are supports in place for communities. Communities are stepping up and showing incredible support and an incredible welcome but we need to see Government working with the Opposition. I welcome the cross-party committee that is being planned but we must see a stronger, Covid-style response from the Government at a centralised level to this.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

Hear, hear.

The Tánaiste

The response has been unprecedented and it is the sheer numbers that have created the challenges. We will work on some of the suggestions the Deputy has made. There is cross-departmental engagement. The Department of Justice is heavily involved in this on the international protection aspect.

The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage is also. The Office of Public Works, OPW, in the first phase of modular housing has made significant progress and the first houses will be coming onstream within weeks in respect of the rapid build. We want to develop that and accelerate the pace of rapid build for both refugees and also for the purposes of social housing and then the reconfiguration of building. All of that work is under way. It is not fair to say that other Departments are not supporting the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

That is how it looks.

The Tánaiste

I believe they are and I would be fairly clear on that. Obviously, the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth is the central Department involved in the migration issue and international protection. That was ordained by the programme for Government but our response to this has to be cross-departmental. To be fair, when one thinks of the work of the Department of Social Protection, for example, there has been tremendous work done in facilitating people.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

No one is doubting that.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

Has the Tánaiste seen the protests?

The Tánaiste

The protests are not-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are over time.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

It is not working. They are finding out before we are.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Táimid ag bogadh ar aghaidh anois chuig an Teachta Boyd Barrett.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Can the Tánaiste explain to the public why successive Fianna Fáil- and Fine Gael-led Governments, including many he was a part of, have pursued a systematic strategy over many years of denying rights and entitlements to vulnerable people and to people who have been wronged by the State, often pursuing a very hostile, cynical legal strategy to deny people their rights? Vulnerable people in long-term residential care with disabilities were denied their disability allowances; before that we had women affected by CervicalCheck and scandals subjected to a very hostile legal strategy. Last night, we had the Government yet again excluding tens of thousands of mothers and children who were victims of the abuse by church and State in mother and baby homes, arbitrarily and unjustifiably excluded from the redress scheme. Then, of course, there is the scandal of the nursing homes fees wrongly levied on vulnerable, often elderly, unwell people. The Government has fought them every step of the way, legally and otherwise, to deny them their rights and entitlements and has used legal strategies to prevent them from getting those entitlements and to hush them up in instances where it was forced, because of legal action, to acknowledge the refunds to which they were entitled. I ask the Tánaiste this very particularly as he was Minister for Health between 2000 and 2004. In that year, the Report on Nursing Home Subventions was laid before him containing 70 pages detailing how successive Governments knew that the fees being charged in nursing homes were illegal, that there was no legal basis for them-----

The Tánaiste

What year was that?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

2001. By the way the report also found, and this is important, that people who had gone to private nursing homes were, in fact, entitled to public nursing home care but none were available to them and they were forced into the private system. The Tánaiste is still saying these people were not entitled to this care when that report made it clear that they were. Another report in 2003 by the Human Rights Commission said the same thing. There was another report in 2010 by the Ombudsman, entitled Who Cares?, while the Tánaiste was Minister in the Government. Where was his moral compass when it came to acknowledging the rights and entitlements of vulnerable people? How could he treat people in that disgusting fashion?

The Tánaiste

I disagree with the Deputy's narrative and assertion in terms of the past 30 years and the 30 years before that. If we go back over the past 25 years, right through it, there were quite a significant number of redress schemes. One of my first decisions was to launch the very first investigation into the role of church and State in the industrial schools. This was the first time it was ever done and we had a very extensive redress scheme in the aftermath of the commission on institutional abuse in our industrial schools. I think at the time I raised more than €1 billion in redress payments. I was the first to do the investigation into the Ferns diocese and, subsequently, other Ministers did the Dublin archdiocese commission of investigation, the Cloyne report. The point is that the past 25 to 30 years has been about revelations about the 20th century in Ireland and, in many instances, significant redress schemes were initiated. That is the reality. I have only just said earlier that in the past two and a half years alone, the Government has decided to commit itself to retrospective payments on a range of issues totalling close to €6 billion. I am not counting all the various redress schemes over the past ten or 20 years.

The fundamental issue with nursing home charges and the disability allowance was actually that the policy was transparent for well over 30 years. It was very transparent in that contributions were taken in full sight from people in residential settings, from their pensions and so on. It transpired that the regulations that gave effect to that were not consistent with the primary Act in respect of public nursing home charges. That is what the 2005 Supreme Court decision conclusively decided on public health charges. A redress scheme of close to €500 million was initiated and paid back. In terms of the medical card patients in private nursing homes, it was never accepted by the Oireachtas or the Government that they were entitled to the entirety of payments in respect of the cost of private nursing homes. Subventions at that stage were the order of the day. In fact, the fair deal scheme, which ultimately dealt with the issue in terms of a legislative template, to this day continues the principle of people making a contribution to both public and private healthcare. The same applies in Northern Ireland in respect of disability allowance. As I have said, right now there are 30 sensitive cases that the Government will be alerted to, all of them with significant cost implications for the State. The ultimate challenge is, which we have to make a call on - every Government will in its day - whether the current generation keeps on paying for historic wrongs or whether we concentrate and focus on the needs, which are very real today, right across the board in social services and social work.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Did the Tánaiste read this report in 2001? It made very clear that successive Governments, including the one he was part of, knew that the basis on which these charges were being levied had no legal basis. He has gone on to repeat what the Taoiseach said earlier this week about the State still not conceding that people who were in private nursing homes but had medical cards had the right to have the fees paid. The Ombudsman report I am referring to noted in 2001, when the Tánaiste was the Minister for Health: "The health boards appear to be directing such patients and their families towards private care without in anyway acknowledging the boards' own responsibilities in this area." People were being forced into private nursing homes because the State had failed to provide them the public nursing home care they were entitled to and the Tánaiste knew this. He knew the charges that were being levied had no legal basis long before courts made decisions on it and he did nothing about it. Vulnerable people had to fight and face hostile legal strategies. It is immoral.

The Tánaiste

The Deputy is wrong in his assertion in terms of the legal advice on nursing home charges. In respect of medical card patients, access to the entirety of their costs in private nursing homes was never conceded. Budgets are going up incrementally and exponentially year after year in terms of an ageing population. By the way, we still have that challenge today but no one wants to pay for it.

All this money is not my money nor the Deputy's, it is the taxpayers' money. We are all birds of passage here, but the Deputy wants 100% retrospection for everything-----

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

All those pensioners were taxpayers too.

The Tánaiste

I have no doubt, if we reveal all the legal strategies and all the legal cases that are before the State at the moment, I know what the Deputy's response would be: "pay it all out." He is asking current taxpayers to do all that. These are not popular decisions-----

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

There was €64 billion for the banks but not for the pensioners.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please, Deputy.

The Tánaiste

The Government and the Executive are there for a reason from time to time. We can be judged rightly or wrongly and I accept that. We must, though, have an honest debate about this as well in terms of how far back we go, how much do we pay in terms of the wrongs of the 20th century-----

Deputy Paul Murphy

There was no problem finding money for the banks.

The Tánaiste

Whereas today-----

Deputy Paul Murphy

No problem at all.

The Tánaiste

-----we have real issues. We have an aging and expanding population for which we need resources. We need to advance social care and do better in many respects. This is the call we had to make.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

They had legal entitlements.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are over time-----

Deputy Pearse Doherty

It is shameful. They had legal entitlements.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Táimid ag bogadh ar aghaidh anois chuig an Teachta Canney.

Deputy Seán Canney

I raise the issue of the Galway city outer bypass. Yesterday, the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications and the Minister for Transport, Deputy Eamon Ryan, stated publicly that this ring-road cannot proceed because we would be breaking laws. This comes on foot of a fresh review that is going to be done by An Bord Pleanála. For the people of Galway, there is much confusion concerning what is going on. What is the Government's policy and what are we doing in Galway city? We have businesspeople who have been advocating for this project for the last ten to 15 years. We have probably spent €25 million to €30 million on doing planning permissions. These have failed, gone to Europe or whatever. We have then started off again. We have land that has been frozen for the last eight to ten years and houses that cannot be sold because they are on this preferred route for a road. We have people travelling into and out of work stuck for maybe 90 minutes each way on a small section to get into the city from the east and south of the county.

We have uncertain development regarding the city, which is the engine for the region to develop. I will give the Tánaiste one small example. We need to put in a new fire station in Galway city but we cannot decide on what site we are going to put it on until we decide on the outer bypass. Yesterday, I think the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, said that this cannot go ahead and cannot proceed. What is happening is that people are wondering what the Government's policy is here. Are we building an outer bypass, are we doing something else or are we doing nothing at all? This is in the national development plan as a project to be done and it is part of the programme for Government. The people of Galway and the region, though, deserve better than just a flippant announcement yesterday that this project cannot proceed, while at same time An Bord Pleanála is going to review the application again. Is this announcement pre-empting its decision?

What is the Government's policy regarding this outer ring road? We have been told the climate action laws must be adhered to and that we cannot break them. Will somebody tell me if we are breaking laws right now by proposing to undertake this outer ring road? Should we be up-front with people and tell them what we are going to do? We had talk about a light rail system for Galway city. We have also had talk about other things for Galway city and all we have are reports upon reports upon studies. We do not even have one park-and-ride facility in Galway city now. Going back to the time of the former Deputy, Noel Dempsey, when he was the Minister for Transport he opened a section of a bus lane in 2007 in Claregalway. The second section of this bus lane has not yet been done. We do not need to acquire land for this endeavour, it is just tied up in paper.

The Tánaiste

I thank the Deputy for raising this very important and pertinent issue, especially for the people of Galway. I, along with many people, see the N6 Galway city ring road project as essential in terms of the growth and development of Galway city and also for the relief of unacceptable congestion there. The current congestion is contributing negatively to climate change targets. With the current volume of vehicles on the existing network, we all know and we can all see that Galway city is suffering from extreme congestion in its centre and increased journey times.

I was recently at the opening of the Macroom bypass. In jest afterwards, I said that we had liberated Macroom. The point being that the quality of life in Macroom now is vastly improved because of the Ballyvourney bypass in terms of congestion, air pollution, climate change targets etc. in the sense that traffic and gridlock cause vehicles to emit fossil fuels for a longer period than they perhaps should be. In any event, the relief to people there is palpable.

Galway city has suffered for decades now because of the failure to progress this project. It has been held up in the planning arena. The clear Government position is as per the programme for Government and the national development plan agreed for 2021 to 2030, which is that this proposed project is to go ahead. This proposed project is included in the national development plan and this remains the Government's position. Obviously, people have different perspectives and the Minister made remarks yesterday in respect of the broader issue. I think he said he wanted to see changes in terms of that particular project, but the specifics of that were not outlined nor I think did he suggest that he had specific elements in mind. I must be clear that, as per the programme for Government and the national development plan, this project is to go ahead.

Deputy Seán Canney

I am delighted for Macroom but I am more worried about Galway city. What the Tánaiste is saying is great, but where does the Minister for Transport stand in this? The body which will fund this project is the Department of Transport. Will we, therefore, get a clear Government message on this project? I will repeat what the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, said. He said this road cannot proceed and that we must take the climate action laws into account. Effectively, then, people are wondering what in the name of God is happening here and can we have clear leadership regarding what is going to happen so we do not have any more confusion.

Personally, I believe the An Bord Pleanála review is compromised if the Department of Transport and the Minister who is the head of it, and also the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, have said that this project cannot proceed and that we must work within the laws. This is very confusing. It is not right that a project of this nature, as the Tánaiste set out, is being put out there in a cloud of indecision and uncertainty. We do not know what is happening.

The Tánaiste

I want to be very clear. As the Deputy knows, Galway City Council and Galway County Council issued a joint statement with Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, this week in which they indicated they remain committed to the delivery of the N6 Galway city ring road. The Government's position is as per the national development plan and this project is included in the allocation of resources over ten years of that plan. The then Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Michael McGrath, allocated these resources and this was agreed by the Cabinet. It was also agreed by the three party leaders, along with the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. This is the formal position and there has been no change in this regard in respect of the Galway city ring road.