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

In 2002, 15 million passengers used Dublin Airport. That figure rose to 18 million passengers by the end of last year. It is estimated that in ten years' time, 30 million passengers will want to use Dublin Airport. The Tánaiste is aware that, especially during the summer months, millions of passengers have to put up with congestion, delay and overcrowding. I recently heard Mr. Robin Cook, the former British Foreign Secretary, say that Dublin Airport is the only airport in the world in which he had to queue to get out.

The Government promised in its programme for Government that this matter would be dealt with, that a low cost terminal would be constructed at Dublin Airport to cope with growing numbers and to develop competition so that the travelling consumer could get best value. In March 2003, the former Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, received 13 expressions of interest in building a new terminal. However, three years on there has been no movement. In the meantime we have witnessed the debacle of how the Aer Lingus situation was handled. The then chief executive has been lost to British Airways. The Government always appears to be one more report away from action.

Some sections of the media now report that the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, brought a report to Cabinet this morning in which he briefed his colleagues on a proposal which he considered to be in the best interest of aviation and the consumer. Did the Minister for Transport give a briefing to the Cabinet today? What is the Tánaiste's preference as the leader of her party and as a member of Government as to the ownership and management of any such terminal? When does the Government propose to deal with the matter of providing extra capacity at Dublin Airport?

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Deputy is aware, the Government gave a commitment in the programme for Government to examine the feasibility of an additional terminal at Dublin Airport. The Deputy has confirmed that there were 13 expressions of interest in respect of that new terminal. The Minister briefed his Cabinet colleagues about aviation matters but no decision was sought from the Government and no decision was made. The Government is to revert to this matter again shortly.

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

Is there division within the Cabinet on this matter? The front pages of some of this morning's newspapers state that the Progressive Democrats will not stand for this second terminal being built and managed by the Dublin Airport Authority. Does the Tánaiste share my view that the ownership is not the significant issue, that what is important is the element of competition, the location and future capacity of the second terminal? As the leader of the Progressive Democrats and a member of the Cabinet, which is her view? Does she agree with a briefing which the Minister for Transport is reported to have given the Cabinet to the effect that it would be better for the Dublin Airport Authority to build and manage a second terminal? How may that be reconciled with the requirement to have competition which would be in the best interests of the aviation industry and the consumer? Given that a decision was not sought today, when will the matter be dealt with by Cabinet? Was there agreement that the Minister for Transport would make a further report and recommendations upon which the Cabinet would make a decision? Are we to be another summer away from action by the Government, which promised this as a specific part of its programme three years ago, but nothing has been done since?

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand the Minister for Transport will bring a memorandum before the Government after Easter. The only issues that are important are capacity and competition. I share Deputy Kenny's view that ownership of such a facility is not the issue, but rather competition which will drive efficiency for consumers and capacity so that the long delays experienced by passengers may be eliminated.

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

Will the Tánaiste refer to what she told the House about long-stay charges in nursing homes and other institutions of the State, that there was "systemic maladministration"? On 3 March, when queried about this, she said specifically that maladministration did not relate only to officials. Subsequently, in the abridged and inadequate debate we had, Government Deputies argued, one after the other, that there was systemic maladministration relating to officials only. Will the Tánaiste tell the House to whom she was referring if it was not officials only? Will she name the Ministers who had knowledge and who were responsible? In particular, I wish to ask her about her colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment? Why, on the night before the meeting in the Gresham Hotel, were briefing documents despatched to him, his officials and the two Ministers of State at that Department? Legal opinion secured by the then South Eastern Health Board was referred to in those documents as well as a memorandum explaining the view on it and that was discussed at the next meeting. We know that even if it is true that the Minister was absent, the two Ministers of State were there, as were his officials and advisers. We know that the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, told Mr. Travers he understood the full legal, financial and political implications of what he had read. This probably shows that the Minister, Deputy Tim O'Malley, should be considered for promotion in that at least he reads his documents.

The Minister of State, Deputy Callely, briefed the Taoiseach, thereby taking out a very important insurance policy for him. He has now implicated the Taoiseach, who cannot sack him because he told him all about it. Will the Tánaiste explain why the Minister, Deputy Martin, is the only Member who knows nothing about what was going on? The information advanced to the House is simply unbelievable. The Tánaiste's decision not to release the documents from the Gresham Hotel meeting is surely calculated to protect her Cabinet colleague. Why will she not release the document from the then South Eastern Health Board? That is not her decision. Property, in that legal opinion, had been transferred to the HSE, following the establishment of that agency. Why should those documents not be made available in full to this House and to the committee examining the Travers report? It can be concealed for no other reason than to protect a culpable and incompetent Minister?

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To deal with the last issue first, I gave an undertaking that the briefing document would be made available. There were four elements to that briefing document. Two of them are published in the Travers report and the other two relate to the South Eastern Health Board legal advice. That contains advice other than in relation to long-term charges. It contains advice on matters that are about to come before the courts. Cases are pending as regards other issues which are dealt with in those legal opinions. For that reason the Attorney General has strongly advised that I would prejudice the position of the State if I released those documents. They are, as the Deputy knows, subject to client and professional confidentiality. All those documents were available to Mr. Travers, who quoted from them in his report.

Maladministration may refer not only to public servants but also politicians. The Travers report was clear on where blame lay. While Mr. Travers said there were misgivings on the part of Ministers over the years for not probing more deeply, he said, I think the words were, on the scale of comparison, "it was nothing in comparison to the fault that lay in the corporate public administration of the Department of Health and Children". He went on to instance why he believed that to be the case. Those were Mr. Travers's findings. He is a reputable former public servant and head of a State organisation, and I accept his findings — I see Deputy McManus has the report. He said he could find no evidence of any Minister having been appropriately briefed by the Department of Health and Children. I am sure that was among the reasons he came to the conclusions outlined.

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

Mr. Travers said there was no written evidence. Surely, if the Tánaiste believes that the documents refer to other matters, she can excise these and still put the documents that relate to this particular issue in the full possession of Members of this House. It simply is not credible. The Tánaiste gave a commitment to the House that she would make these documents available. She subsequently made contact, presumably with Deputy Kenny and certainly with me, to the effect that on the eve of the bank holiday she was not making public two of those documents. If there is a separate matter involved, that should be excised and the documents should be made available. Is the Tánaiste saying that Mr. Travers had full access to all the documents in question? Does she have any explanation as to why a man who was the head of such an important Department can claim never to have read his documents or talked to the Ministers of State at the Department? One Minister of State felt the matter was so serious that he had to talk to the Taoiseach about it, but not to the Minister. Can the Tánaiste offer any rational explanation for that situation? Will she say if the Government committee, established to examine what form redress might take, has met and, if so, how many times and when is it likely that information will be published on what scheme of redress the Government is committed to?

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government committee met this morning and I will bring a memorandum to the Government at our first meeting after the Easter recess, on 6 April. We examined the possibility of deleting references to the other issues in the legal opinion, but as the matters are all intertwined that would have been impossible. It would not have made sense. A number of cases are pending, as I am sure the Deputy is aware, where we would jeopardise the position of the State and particularly that of the HSE. It is not traditional that legal advice that could prejudice the outcome from the taxpayers' viewpoint would be put into the public domain at this point. Above all else, we all have to be professional in the manner in which we handle this issue. All the advice was available to Mr. Travers. He saw the entire legal opinion and the memorandum in relation to it compiled by the South Eastern Health Board. Essentially, the two documents——

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

Fumbling along blindfold in the Department is not being professional.

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——are the legal advice, extending to more than 80 pages, and a shortened version of it in the form of a memorandum. The other two documents are in the report. Mr. Travers found that no Minister had been appropriately briefed. I went to the Department of Health and Children on 30 September and was not briefed about this matter. It was only after the intervention by Deputy Kenny that I sought the legal advice of the Attorney General. I felt that I should have been briefed, as the new Minister, on issues as serious as this, but that did not happen.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This morning in my constituency, along with Deputy Crawford and local councillors, I visited Iorball Sionnaigh national school in Scotstown, County Monaghan. We witnessed no less than six classes with in excess of 30 pupils. In the pre-secondary year, in sixth class, we found 36 pupils. Does the Tánaiste recognise this is the reality which many of our young people, particularly in the primary school sector, contend with as they endeavour to learn in what we regard as a so-called knowledge economy?

Does the Tánaiste recognise that the single greatest difficulty that pupils and teachers will face in the coming academic year of 2005-06 is the unacceptably large numbers in classes? Is she aware that in this State we have the second highest average class size in the European Union? Does she recall that in the agreed programme between her party and Fianna Fáil in preparation for Government, she committed to reducing the class sizes to below the international best practice of 20:1, yet the current numbers are 24:1 and, as in the instance that I cited at the outset of my question, the reality in many classes in many schools is much higher? Did the Tánaiste get feedback on this from her own canvassers in Meath and north Kildare where the average in both counties runs well above the national average and is recorded at 26:1 and 27:1 respectively?

Will the Government act decisively to reduce the unacceptably high class sizes in real terms in the coming year? Will the Tánaiste commence the recruitment of additional teachers to alleviate the distress, particularly of teachers but also of pupils, arising from this situation? Is she aware that the INTO has indicated that there are in excess of 1,000 trained teachers available if the system will open its doors and accept them?

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A substantial investment has been made in education in recent years. The priorities have been resource teachers, special needs teachers and areas of disadvantage. When all those teachers are included, the overall national average has fallen from 22.2:1 in 1996-7 to 17.44:1. If a school has a class of more than 30 pupils, it means it has many fewer——

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are some in the Tánaiste's constituency.

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, but overall in the school there cannot be those averages. It means there are low numbers in some classes. That is how some schools——

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have all seen the schools and that is not true.

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Department of Education and Science appoints and pays for a teacher for 29 students; that is a fact. We must do more but we must have a sense of priority.

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why does the Government not do it? It has a great deal of money.

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Over the last seven years, 4,000 extra teachers have been employed.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Tánaiste knows there is a significant difference between the pupil-teacher ratio and the average class size but she and her colleagues continue to refer to it almost as a crutch for their own failures to address the real need in the education system. She should make no mistake. It is like saying there are 166 Members in the Dáil and seven political parties and, therefore, we can say the average representation of each of the parties is 23.7. It is absolutely ludicrous, meaningless, false and misleading.

When the Tánaiste cites those figures, she includes non-teaching principals, special needs teachers and resource teachers who work on a one-to-one basis and do not take classes. We are talking about teachers dealing with classes with in excess of 30 pupils. It is an outrage and no teacher can possibly give the time necessary to the needs of each pupil.

We need to know what action the Government proposes taking to address this serious situation. Will the Tánaiste lift the embargo on the creation of new teaching posts? Will she act to ease the burden on teachers who must teach in multiple classes, a reality in many small rural schools?

What is the position with the revised system for the allocation of special needs teachers? We have seen the terrible tragedy and the travesty of the treatment of the O'Hara family in the last two weeks and we need to know exactly what the Tánaiste and her Government colleagues will do.

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Contrary to what the Deputy said, there is no embargo on teacher recruitment. If we did not have multiple classes, many of the rural schools would close. We will strive to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio for all students but the priorities will clearly continue to be special needs and areas of disadvantage.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The average class size is the important figure.

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are students in classes of 15 and apparently the literacy levels are no different so it is not just about more teachers, it is about new teaching methods.