Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Taoiseach will be aware, the national development plan promised 275 additional buses for Dublin Bus over and above those necessary to replace decommissioned vehicles. The Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, told Deputy Mitchell in the House on 3 February that in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 Dublin Bus had 1,062 buses. Yesterday the Taoiseach described those figures as gobbledegook, yet they were given to the Dáil by his Minister for Transport less than two months ago. In the report published yesterday, Dublin Bus pointed out that commuters in the rapidly growing suburbs of greater Dublin are facing even longer journey times. As the Taoiseach will know, commuters in towns such as Leixlip, Celbridge, Maynooth, Kildare, Dunboyne and Ashbourne who want to switch from cars to public transport now find that impossible.

Perhaps we might have an explanation from the Taoiseach as to why commuters and those who wish to avail themselves of public services and transport have been let down by another broken promise. Why is there a serious discrepancy between the figures announced by the Minister to the Dáil and what the national development programme envisaged? What is the point of introducing additional bus lanes if there are no new buses to use them? Is that not another example of statements being made by the Government that it cannot honour and the Taoiseach's calculations and mathematics bringing us to a new low or new high, depending on how one wishes to view matters?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government is certainly not abandoning its commitment to provide additional buses under the national development plan. Funding for over 300 new buses has been made available in the last five years, and there are now over 1,000 buses in the service of Dublin Bus. We are continuing to invest in Dublin Bus, whose annual subvention is now €60 million.

The issue, as has been pointed out by Dublin Bus management, is that the success of Luas has taken many people out of cars but also buses. That has meant that there are 30 or more buses available for use elsewhere in the city, according to Dublin Bus figures, as the management told me yesterday. It had previously stated that publicly. Spare capacity is likely to increase when the very substantial upgrade to the capacity of the DART is complete. Such spare capacity should of course be used before any decision is made on where the new buses are to go.

Dublin Bus has applied for funding for 40 additional buses, and the potential impact on demand for buses of the arrival of Luas was discussed with the company. It has not put in any additional funding for 2005; its figure was for last year. The Department of Transport asked the Dublin Transportation Office some time ago to carry out a bus network review, which will highlight the additional investment required for the bus fleet. Ministers made it clear that when that and certain other reform issues, which are ongoing and on which a great deal of progress has been made, have been cleared, they will be able to deal with the question. The idea that we should add additional buses on to a fleet when agreement has not been reached on the routes of buses not being used is ridiculous. I hope those discussions can be concluded at an early date.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I bring to the Taoiseach's attention an e-mail I received from Dublin Bus on 2 December last year. It clearly states:

The NDP (2000 to 2006) funded additional buses for Dublin Bus as follows: 2000, 93 buses; 2001, 0 buses; 2002, 0 buses; 2003, 0 buses; 2004, 0 buses.

The national development plan for 2004 proposes funding for 80 additional buses for 2005 and 102 additional buses for 2006. Will the Taoiseach confirm that it takes 12 months to bring a bus on to the street from the date of order? Are there more buses on the streets now than there were this time last year? Will the Taoiseach confirm also, in respect of the national development programme, which he launched with great fanfare, that there will be 80 additional buses on the streets for 2005 and 102 for 2006, given that it takes 12 months for this Government to get a bus on the road from the time it is ordered? I do not know the extent of the Taoiseach's canvassing——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy's time has concluded.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——but the frustration people feel sitting in endless traffic jams must be appreciated before he can understand what is happening on the streets of towns and villages. The Taoiseach's programme has let them down again——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy, you had one minute to ask a supplementary question. You have already used two minutes. I ask you to give way to the Taoiseach.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

May we have an answer to these questions? Will there be 80 and 102 additional buses for 2005 and 2006?

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will it be like the 2,000 extra gardaí?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are on the way too.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They will probably be mini-buses.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is Deputy Kenny's question. Only he is entitled to ask a supplementary.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Not alone are there more buses, there are 1,000 buses. Over 300 buses have been changed. Obviously, some of those are replacement buses. On Dublin Bus figures, they have 30 buses, the change of routes of which they have not yet agreed. They have to also agree some of their other reform issues. They have been told by the Department that when those issues are addressed there will be agreement on the required additional buses. That is what the review is concerned with. They have not put in an application for any additional buses in 2005. They requested 40 buses before the Luas was set up last year. They have stated that the effect of that was to take buses off their own areas. We should continue with the QBCs and the additional buses we have available. We are also carrying far more passengers. There has been an increase of approximately 12% over the past four years in the numbers of people travelling by Dublin Bus, and that has worked successfully.

Deputy Kenny mentioned the other issues. A total of €1.2 billion has been invested in railways in the past four or five years. Iarnród Éireann, which is carrying people to Kildare, as the Deputy mentioned, has seen an enormous increase in capacity. A total of 120 new inner city rail cars, the largest order ever placed in the history of the State, have been ordered and will be commissioned. As Deputy Kenny is aware, a large number of them will go into the towns he mentioned. That is on top of a huge increase in capacity over recent years. The DART, Luas and bus services are also helping, although maybe not in the areas he mentioned. It is the rail services they require.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to raise another and separate dereliction of duty by another Minister. I refer to the subject matter of the Travers report. Will the Taoiseach indicate if the Travers report will be put into the public domain on receipt or kept under cover until after the by-elections? Will he answer clearly whether he still has confidence in the Minister, Deputy Martin, in particular? This must be the biggest debacle in the history of public administration in Ireland. It certainly rivals anything we saw previously. Despite what the Tánaiste has caused to be made public, the Minister, Deputy Martin, blithely sails through it all as if it had nothing to do with him and he carries no responsibility for it.

Whatever the arguments about going back to 1976, is it not the case that, as the Supreme Court judgment has made clear, and the only inference that can be drawn from that judgment was that after the 2001 decision, for political motives, to give medical cards to the over 70s, there was no doubt about the illegality of what the State was doing? That is the only clear inference, and the Minister charged with preparing the legislation to bring in those cards for those over 70 could not but have known about it.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If he did not know about it, he had to know about it in 2003. When one health board got explicit legal advice to the effect that the charges were illegal and passed them on to the Department and the other health boards, for some reason it took ten months to get a meeting in the Department of the top chief executives, the top management and the three managers on 16 December 2003. At that meeting this was the main issue discussed.

The Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, may be accused of dumping on the Minister, Deputy Martin, and that may be because she suspects he was responsible for leaking the information about her stopping the authorised officer's inquiry into Ansbacher in her Department. I am sure he was not, but it is good that there is tension between them because she put into the public domain the minutes of this meeting, which show the three Ministers are listed as attending. He says he was not there for part of it, but he got the minutes. He had two Ministers there, one of whom was a Minister for older people.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is right.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If a Minister for older people did not know about this, what did the Minister for older people know? Does the Taoiseach still have confidence in these three Ministers?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Rabbitte asked when the Travers report will be available. I do not know exactly; it is due in shortly. The report is not that long in preparation but I understand Mr. Travers is anxious to complete it as soon as he possibly can.

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

After the by-elections.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Maybe before that, it depends on when it comes in. Obviously, the Government will have to consider it but it is committed to publishing it.

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We were promised it before the by-elections.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Allen, this is Deputy Rabbitte's question.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will publish it. If these matters had been dealt with before the election in 1977, we would not be here now.

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Who brought in the medical cards?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What was clear in 2003 was very clear in 1976. It went through——

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is rubbish.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Unfortunately, it is not rubbish.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Allow the Taoiseach to reply.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is absolutely pathetic.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be nice to say that everyone knew everything a year ago. It was as clear at the time of the judgment in 1976 as it was after the latest legal advice. That is the position.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not what the Supreme Court is saying.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Supreme Court has found that the retrospective provisions of the Bill on making lawful the imposition and payment of such charges in the past is unconstitutional in so far as this concerns the property rights of individuals. The provisions to allow such charging in the future were not found to be repugnant to the Constitution. When we deal with the Travers report we will also have to deal with that legislation. We had a meeting last week to discuss the process and the organisation of the repayments that have to be made. When the Travers report is available the Attorney General will have to look again at the legal aspects of it. We will have to decide how to put together a scheme of repayments that will be sufficiently fair. It is estimated that at least €500 million will have to be repaid. However, that matter must be considered in light of the Travers report and the Attorney General's ongoing examination of the Supreme Court judgment. The volume of calls on the Health Service Executive helpline has caused delays and difficulties. I hope additional operators will be employed to deal with calls from the public.

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach should tell them to ring Deputy Perry.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Eleven governments and 40 health boards in the past 29 years have supported the policy of charging in respect of long-stay care.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach has evaded the question and described the problem. We know what is the problem. I do not know whether it should have been known about in 1976. From its judgment, it is apparent the Supreme Court does not know either. However, it knows that the position was clear from 2001. The documents the Tánaiste has placed in the public domain indicate that, at the MAC meeting on 16 December, the then Minister and Ministers of State are listed as meeting the chief executives of the health boards to discuss this problem. How can they seriously state that they were unaware of it? I accept that 16 December is close to Christmas and the then Minister of State at the Department, Deputy Callely, might have been signing his Christmas cards but what is the excuse for the other Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, who is responsible for people with mental incapacity included under this category?

What is the explanation in respect of the senior Minister who received the MAC minutes, which recorded the decisions taken? A decision was taken at that meeting, as a result of an assessment prepared by the Department, to communicate by letter — this would have been signed by the Secretary General — with the Attorney General and request legal advice. It has been stated that this letter was, unfortunately, not sent at that time. Who causes a Secretary General of a Department not to sign a letter? Who made that decision? Why was the letter not sent to the Attorney General? Does the Taoiseach have confidence in the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, following this, as the Tánaiste described it, systemic maladministration and political incompetence?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy, the House and everyone else should wait until the Travers report is published. In answer to the Deputy's final question as to whether I have confidence in the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the answer is "yes".

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach has not yet seen the Travers report. How could he have confidence in the Minister?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy asked me if I have confidence in him now. I hope I will also have confidence in him when the Travers report appears. I do not believe the Minister, Deputy Martin — following the version he has imparted — was responsible for stopping the letter being sent. However, I will have to see what will be included in the Travers report.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is only the Minister's version.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister does not organise the sending of letters on behalf of others. He may, however, organise sending his own letters. Unfortunately, the letter in question was never sent to the Attorney General. As Members are aware, the first occasion on which the Attorney General was asked to investigate this matter was in the autumn of 2004. He investigated it quite speedily and issued a report to the Tánaiste. The Government also acted speedily in respect of the report. That was the sequence of events.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It beggars belief.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In recent weeks a plethora of cases involving gross exploitation of Irish workers and, in particular, migrant workers in vulnerable situations by a range of employers have emerged. In the case of the Dublin Port tunnel, it was discovered that 40 Polish workers were being paid half the rate applicable to their Irish counterparts. The employees to whom I refer were also forced to work excessive hours. In addition, other irregularities also emerged. In Mullingar, migrant workers — bricklayers and blocklayers — were forced to go on strike.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not appropriate to name firms which are not in a position to defend themselves.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not name anybody.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy did name them.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy merely indicated where the employees in question were working.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not name any firm. I referred to a case in Mullingar involving the gross exploitation of workers. As regards women in domestic service and those working in the care area, the Migrant Rights Centre has documented cases of low pay, excessive working hours, illegal deductions and the fear of deportation if these individuals come forward. There is a major problem in this area.

Does the Taoiseach agree with the trade union activist who stated that the resources the Government provides to root out these abuses are pitiful? I am informed that there are at least 40 dog wardens in the State. There are at least as many rogue bosses as there are mad dogs in the country but there are only 21 labour inspectors. I accept that these inspectors are hard-working and conscientious. However, with the rate of abuse and the fact that there are almost 2 million workers, the resources are completely inadequate. This is a matter of the greatest gravity, involving immoral exploitation. The rogue employers to whom I refer undermine the wages and conditions of all workers. However, those wages and conditions give the latter an edge when it comes to bidding for contracts against firms that pay proper rates and offer their employees proper conditions.

This is a matter of great concern to Independent Deputies from across the country who informed me about similar cases. We want a commitment from the Taoiseach in respect of it. Will he massively increase resources to double or treble the number of personnel employed by the labour inspectorate? In addition, we are seeking that the inspectorate have an office not only in Dublin but one in each of the regions so that it will be easily accessible for workers who need its services. Will the Taoiseach give the inspectors sufficient resources to enable them to be proactive in terms of seeking out exploitation and abuse and in circumventing the front of respectability the exploiters are experts at putting up? The workers who are the victims are often afraid to come forward and, therefore, there must be a sufficient number of inspectors to approach them so that we might root out this immorality that is affecting employment practices.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Joe Higgins is correct that this matter has arisen in the House on a number of recent occasions. The Minister has, on each occasion, contacted the Deputies who raised it seeking the information in their possession. I understand Deputy Joe Higgins brought an independent councillor to meet the Minister and that the latter was given some information relating to a Polish firm which is being examined.

The pay and conditions of the workers concerned appear to fall within the scope of the construction industry's registered employment agreement. Under that agreement, the statutory minimum rate is applicable to the highest grade of construction operative. While this is not in line with the industry or going rate, it is normally a matter for the parties concerned to regularise the position. It has been pointed out publicly to the workers involved in any of these cases that they are Europeans and come within the ambit of Irish labour legislation. The Minister, Deputy Martin, has considered some of the contracts and the Department is examining a number of clarifications.

There is no differentiation in terms of the statutory minimum rates of pay or conditions of employment between any workers in specific categories. Such workers enjoy equal access to the various redress mechanisms the relevant legislation provides. We have pointed this out to them. None of the workers concerned and none of the firms concerned has registered a formal complaint with the labour inspectorate, even though we have made the position clear through the trade unions.

In terms of the number of cases they are obliged to check, the staff at the inspectorate are not snowed under because no such cases have been brought to their attention. They are proactively checking the sources to whom Deputies have referred in the House. To date, they have not had to do a great deal of investigation because very little evidence has been put forward. I reiterate that if Members on any side of the House have information about this matter, they should make it available. At this stage, all we have is one contract in our possession and this is being examined.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach rambled incoherently. I do not know what he was talking about.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know the Deputy does not know what I am talking about. The Deputy was asked to produce the evidence and he has not done so.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A number of Deputies have submitted questions.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach must withdraw that immediately. He is obviously completely ignorant and does not know what he is talking about. I will give him an opportunity.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Joe Higgins, without interruption. He has one minute left.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know the facts. The Deputy should be careful what he says because I know what happened.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I invite the Taoiseach to give the facts——

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will give the full facts in a minute.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Joe Higgins should be allowed to submit his questions, without interruption.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——because he obviously did not listen to what was a general question about the position of migrant workers. On the complaint I raised two weeks ago, I am satisfied that this is being taken seriously, so I have not raised that today. However, the Taoiseach must withdraw the assertion that I have not brought the evidence I had to the attention of the official inspectorate, because that is completely wrong and false. I give the Taoiseach the benefit of perhaps not being aware of this, since he will not know everything that happens. I am aware he knows most things, but not everything. He will have to withdraw that when he gets up.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The minute has concluded.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In view of the fact that the Taoiseach-——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have allowed injury time for that.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, but the Taoiseach diverted. I was asking him about the position of migrant workers generally. The Taoiseach seems to say there is not a problem. Migrant workers, in some cases, are being treated as shamefully as our countrymen and countrywomen in a different epoch, when they were building the railroads in the United States or carrying the hod to the top of the London skyline. Some conditions have not changed. What we are calling for is a doubling of the inspectorate, at least, so that these abuses can be rooted out and so that the inspectors may be proactive. Many complaints are coming in from around the country from workers and from many advocates who work with migrants, in particular.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Joe Higgins raised one case in the House and I asked the Minister immediately to follow it up. I am not arguing about that case. At the time the Deputy said he would get the information about that case, which he did, and we have investigated it. However, the labour inspectorate nor any of the workers concerned in that case have registered a formal complaint. We have examined the contract, but no formal complaint has been lodged. Most of the workers coming here are from three categories. Polish workers represent about 47%, Lithuanians more than 27% and about 12% are Latvians.

These are European workers and all of our Irish labour legislation is compatible with their requirements. We have made it absolutely clear at every level, through companies, chambers of commerce, trades councils, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and all its affiliates, that this is the position. Some employers seem to be paying the rate as set down in the registered employment agreement for the construction industry, the REA, as it has been known for 30 years, not the going rate. For the benefit of Deputy Joe Higgins and anyone who has ever been involved in negotiations, it is not only workers from outside the State who fall into this category. That has been regular practice by employers and in law it is matter for the parties concerned to regularise whatever contract is in place. In so far as there is any information, the inspectors are dealing with that. My point is that there is very little information. A number of people have raised this issue, but there is very little hard information. Any information forthcoming will be investigated.

As regards some of the non-European countries, if the Deputy is raising that issue today it is a separate question. I appreciate there have been more complaints in that regard concerning people who come here from Nigeria, Bulgaria and Romania. However, we have been treating Romania and Bulgaria as accession countries, even though their citizens do not come under the same agreement, and they are enjoying the same conditions as Irish workers. These matters are being investigated. If it becomes a case that requires more resources, the answer to Deputy Joe Higgins is that it will have to be better resourced. However, there is a genuine attempt to investigate comprehensively, as the Deputy has accepted, any of these cases as they arise. It is not acceptable under Irish labour law that employers treat these people differently to what is set down in the legislation. I have gone out of my way to make that clear, by every means possible, to protect vulnerable people who might be abused.