Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 Dec 2023

I appreciate the Ceann Comhairle selecting this Topical Issue again so soon after the last night we discussed it in the Chamber. On that occasion Deputies Carthy, Fitzmaurice and McGuinness were here with me. We were unanimous on the need for an investigation into what happened on Dan Brennan's farm in Castlecomer. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine discussed this approximately 12 months ago. We were of the view that a grave injustice has been done to Dan Brennan with regard to the pollution issues that were on his farm for a long number of years up to 2008. The questions that arose from that pollution, which placed financial hardship and pressure on his farm, have never been properly answered.

On the previous occasion we discussed this, we requested that the Minister hold an investigation into what happened on this farm in Castlecomer. A factory owned by CRH was operating there until 2008. There are big questions to be answered. Dan Brennan and his family have suffered great financial hardship over the years. They are still suffering mental anguish because of the repercussions of what happened to them during that period.

At the beginning of 2006 representatives from the veterinary college went to Dan Brennan's farm. A meeting was held in June 2006 in Kilkenny. At this meeting were the EPA, the head of the veterinary laboratory in Kilkenny, Michael Sheridan who was the deputy chief veterinary officer at the Department, Teagasc, Kilkenny County Council and vets representing Dan Brennan. There were 15 people in total at the meeting. The conclusion was that whatever the problem was on Dan Brennan's farm it was not disease. Despite this, the Department and the EU persist in stating the problem on Mr. Brennan's farm was disease.

I am a farmer. Cattle trials were done on Dan Brennan's farm. Cattle were taken from his farm and moved elsewhere to farms run by the State. When they went from Dan Brennan's farm the cattle could thrive. On his farm the weight loss was immense, as was the lack of performance and the deaths of animals. Why was this?

If it was a disease that was in those animals, then it would have followed them from one location to another.

There are so many unanswered questions here that Dan Brennan and his family deserve an investigation into what happened. Dan and some of his neighbours are in the Gallery. In 2008, and I only learned this from Dan Brennan in a conversation today, a Kevin Dodd, a representative of CRH, came into his farm. He saw the state of Dan's livestock and the problems he was having concerning the lack of thriving and the lack of performance of his livestock, and he said it would not go on for long more. Within a couple of weeks, the factory closed. When it did, over several years, the productivity of Dan Brennan's farm came back to normal. His cows doubled their milk yield and his cattle performance came back as well. At two years of age, his cattle were back to weighing 550 kg, or thereabouts. Prior to this, the performance was half this. This is recorded with trials, etc. Whoever was at fault here, it most definitely was not Dan Brennan and his farming practices. We are asking for an investigation into why there were such problems on Dan Brennan's farm. He deserves answers.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I also thank Deputy Cahill for raising this issue. I acknowledge the people in the Gallery who have come here to hear this Topical Issue debate. I am obviously taking this on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy McConalogue, who cannot be here.

As someone from a farming background who was reared on our family's suckler farm, I can really appreciate from Deputy Cahill's testimony how distressing an experience like this can be. I do ask him to be aware, however, that I had no knowledge of this case up until now and in the context of this Topical Issue debate. I will read into the record the contribution the Minister has sent.

During the Topical Issue debate on 7 November, the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, explained that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, along with other public sector bodies, invested significant resources in an investigation of animal health and environmental concerns on a farm in County Kilkenny. This exercise concluded some 13 years ago and commenced a number of years before that.

The Minister explained that an interagency group was convened in 2004 to examine this matter. It brought together a broad range of scientific expertise, from the Department's laboratories, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Teagasc, the Health Services Executive, HSE, and Kilkenny County Council. That group reported its findings in June 2006. I also understand that during the latter part of 2005, the then Department of Agriculture and Food funded a comprehensive animal health programme on the affected farm. This included a programme of mastitis control, calf vaccinations and the provision of calf hutches for the 2006 calving season, as well as the provision of advice on enhanced biosecurity.

I am advised that the multiagency report concluded that the problems in this herd were multifactorial in nature and that common infectious diseases were likely to have accounted for much of the ill-thrift and poor growth rates recorded. It also concluded that there was no evidence of fluoride or cadmium intoxication of animals in this herd nor any evidence of environmental pollution on the farm. It is clear nonetheless that the events around this time were extremely distressing for the herd owner. Against that background, the Minister committed to considering this matter further.

To better inform this consideration, the Minister requests that Mr. Brennan would provide any evidence, in writing, that was not available at the time of the investigation to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The Minister would also welcome any additional information, in writing, that Mr. Brennan believes was not properly considered at the time of the investigation. Once the Minister has had an opportunity to consider this new information, he will provide an update on this matter in the new year.

A paragraph the Minister of State read out, and I know he was reading from a statement supplied to him, stated he was "advised that the multiagency report concluded that the problems in this herd were multifactorial in nature and that common infectious diseases were likely to have accounted for much of the ill-thrift and poor growth rates recorded". That is just fiction. When animals left this herd to go for trials elsewhere, their thrive recovered. Some 45 acres of vegetation, including ditches, etc., also died on the farm. How can someone then say there was not environmental pollution? This is just not acceptable.

As I said, when the factory closed, all the problems with ill thrive and lack of performance from this dairy herd changed. Now, it took two or three years for the recovery in performance to happen, but it is just not right to say it was infectious diseases that caused the problem on Dan Brennan's farm. This is just not the case, and it is just not acceptable. What I am asking and pleading for on behalf of Dan Brennan, to try to bring closure to this situation, is that an independent investigation be undertaken by an international expert. Let him come in and examine the evidence that was there. This case went to Brussels twice, and no satisfactory conclusion was achieved from those two instances of travel to Brussels.

I am asking now that an independent person would come in, examine the evidence that is there and let answers be found to what happened on Dan Brennan's farm. I know this is an historical matter, but the mental and financial anguish this man suffered has been immense. The least we owe him is to have an independent investigation undertaken to give him answers to the question of why this happened on his farm. This is what I am asking and pleading for. When four of us spoke here the last night on this issue, this was the question we had for the Minister. I see the last line in the response read out by the Minister of State refers to the Minister considering this in the new year. I plead for an independent investigation. None of the elected people in the Department, including the Minister of State or any of the other three Ministers or Ministers of State in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine were responsible for what happened in this case. What happened here is historical. Let the truth come out and let us see what was really the problem on Dan Brennan's farm.

Just to be very clear, I am not in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine and I do not have any knowledge of this case. I know this is not acceptable at times for Deputies when Topical Issue debates and the issues raised in them are very important. Obviously, though, the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, will have the detail and knowledge concerning this matter. When Deputies have visitors coming to the Gallery, I respect the fact that it is not ideal when someone like me comes in who does not have the detail or the knowledge on a case like this. This is because it is not under my jurisdiction. I will, though, bring back the issues raised here by Deputy Cahill.

Coming from a family farm, I know how well animals are looked after by farmers. My late dad had his herd depopulated back in the 1980s, which was a very distressing time for our family. I can, therefore, very much appreciate what it is like when something like this happens to someone's family farm. I refer to the investment in terms of the work and care that farmers put into their animals. It must be exceptionally distressing when something like what has happened in this case occurs. I can appreciate it. It is heartfelt when I comment on the sincerity with which the Deputy has raised this issue. I will again raise this case with the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, in respect of the Deputy's contribution on this matter tonight and put forward the strong case he has made. Obviously, the agriculture committee has discussed this as well. The Minister has put on the record here tonight that he has committed to reviewing this case in the new year. It is important to respond to the process and to ensure all the detail is with the Minister to allow him to make a determination in this regard. I will genuinely bring exactly what the Deputy said here tonight to the attention of the Minister.

Under Standing Order 54, Members may appeal to me in respect of an answer to questions. I signal here that I am not overly taken with this response. This is because what is being said here is that the Minister will consider new information. I do not think there is any new information in this historical case. The information that exists is that which existed several years ago when these events were happening. It is how this information is interpreted that matters. It is whether fresh eyes can be brought, as Deputy Cahill has said, to bear on this issue. I ask Deputy Cahill to bring this matter back in January, when we resume in session, and let us have a further opportunity to discuss it with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I do not imagine that the Deputy will be in a position to produce new information. It seems to me that copious amounts of information have already been provided. Anyway, sin é an scéal.

This is similar to the last debate. I do appreciate the Minister of State making time to be here.

I do not generally have an issue with Ministers of State taking Topical Issues, but is it is preferable when the Minister of State is in the relevant Department. Maybe it is a function of late night Topical Issues and the way the Dáil is structured at the minute, but I do not think-----

I have no great gripe in regard to the Minister of State, Deputy Burke.

I bring this case up partially in the context of having been contacted by a few individuals looking for assistance regarding applications. I am very conscious of one in particular. By way of context, the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act was passed several years ago. It is a good piece of legislation. It is one we supported and it makes sense. It makes sense given that the decisions that are being taken are very weighty and significant in terms of the responsibility for decisions being taken from one person and given to another. Obviously, it is important that there are strong safeguards in place.

It was some time between the Act being passed to it taking effect. So far, the experience of the people who have sought to apply for a role under the Act have found the system to be quite onerous. That is right, up to a point. However, I would like to raise a couple of issues. There are two major forms, as well as a couple of other forms. Form 55A is not too bad and is relatively straightforward.

However, form 55B is 28 pages long and contains some fairly lengthy questions that require parsing a couple of times. It states:

In the case of an application under Part 5 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015, explain the reason why the benefit to the Relevant Person sought to be achieved has failed to be achieved in any other appropriate, practicable and less intrusive manner (example: assisted decision-making; co-decision-making) taken prior to the making of this application

It goes on to refer to "The acquisition of property by the Relevant Person ... Please give details" and "The carrying on, on behalf of the Relevant Person, of any profession, trade or business which may lawfully be carried on by a person other than the Relevant Person (example: the management of any business which the Relevant Person owns or operates which he or she might not in future be able to undertake)".

For a form that was going to a public body, State agency or legal person, that is all fair enough. However, ordinary citizens are filling out these forms. The case I am dealing with concerns a man whose wife's dementia had escalated very rapidly to the point that she needed to be put into a nursing home. Decisions had to be taken to facilitate that. He was trying to deal with this stuff. Fair deal was coming down on him and asking him about the form. He started this process in May and it continued until September. He described being absolutely burned out.

It did not help that this happened only two days into the new system. He went to the Courts Service to look for assistance and was told the service had never seen the form before and did not know what was going on. Surely there should have been some communication with the Courts Service. He went to a lawyer, who had never seen the form. He went to gardaí who told him he needed to go to a lawyer. He did not qualify for free legal aid. Even if he did, the waiting list would be significant which would obviously have implications for the transition of his wife into a nursing home. In the meantime, she was in transitional care which they were pleased with. He is an ordinary member of the public trying to fill out a form.

I have no problem with the substance of what is trying to be achieved, but it seems to me that the forms need to be made a bit simpler and more straightforward. Support needs to be available. If people do not qualify for legal aid, that does not mean they are on the pig's back or in a better position to comprehend precisely the 60-odd question they are being asked. It is right that there are safeguards, but we need to support people working through this.

I thank the Deputy for raising this very important issue and for the opportunity to discuss the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015. As the Deputy will be aware, the Act was commenced in April of this year, following the passage of amending legislation, by my colleague, the Minister, Deputy O’Gorman, and the constructive input of Deputies and Senators across the Houses.

First, let me acknowledge the scale and magnitude of change that this legislation has brought about in Irish society. In repealing the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act 1871 the commencement of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 has moved our legal framework out of the 1800s and into a space where our system is recognised as one of the more progressive approaches to capacity legislation in Europe.

The Act abolishes wardship and sets out a process for existing wards to transition to new, rights-based decision support arrangements. It has ushered in a new era where capacity will no longer be approached from the out-of-date status approach but will instead be assessed on a case-by-case time and context specific manner. The Act gives people experiencing diminished capacity the opportunity to participate more equally in society and have greater power to direct the course of their own lives in an independent and dignified manner. In doing so, it brings us into alignment with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The decision support service, DSS, is a critical component of assisted decision-making, and it holds a range of different powers to implement and support the operation of the Act. The DSS plays a crucial role in ensuring that the different tiers of support under the Act are available to those who need them and holds a supervisory and safeguarding role in relation to those arrangements. It is also vital that people who want to avail of decision supports have the right information and assistance available to them, and the DSS is crucial in this regard.

I can assure the Deputy that the DSS is doing all in its power to process decision support applications in a timely manner and, wherever possible, to improve service standards. The Act is newly commenced, having only come into force in April. It is worth acknowledging that, as with any process of significant change, it will take time to fully bed in. This is particularly the case given that the scale of reform here is nothing less than the overhaul of a legal system that was older than our own State.

Just over six months on from commencement, it is extremely encouraging that there is now evidence the Act is providing its intended supports to those who need them. The DSS continues to see rising levels of engagement week on week, with 1,498 active applications in its system, comprising a mix of applications for enduring powers of attorney, co-decision making agreements and decision-making assistance agreements.

The DSS reached the milestone of 100 fully registered arrangements earlier this month, and the number of applications submitted is continuing to grow. A total of 129 decision-making representation orders have been notified by the Circuit Courts to date, and these also continue to gather pace. A high level interdepartmental steering group is continuing to monitor the implementation of the Act and to respond to teething issues as they arise, but I am pleased to note for the House that the new legislation is already supporting a significant number of people to exercise control over their own affairs even in the context.

I note the point relating to the steering group. I am sure the Minister will not be able to commit to it on the floor of the House, but I might suggest that he request a meeting. The man to whom I have referred might have useful insights and if somebody from the steering group was in a position to speak to him, it might help. I have been contacted by a few others who are at the start of the process. We will see how they go. They were certainly very intimidated by the form when they first received it.

The system is new, but one of the worst elements of the man's experience was that when he went to the Courts Service nobody knew how to help him or exactly what this was. It seemed to the gentleman that the courts were not remotely prepared for this, to the extent that on the first hearing of his case that was brought before the judge, the judge put the case back because he was not familiar with the system. That is really frustrating. The steering group should consider some kind of support because not everyone will qualify for legal aid. To be honest, people should not be obliged to seek legal advice regarding forms for elements of public services. Perhaps that is appropriate, but in any event not everyone will qualify for legal aid.

Greater assistance could be made available to people applying. Some people would not be in a position to go through this process without it being an urgent issue, given the way things develop might not be so quick, but it is not hard to imagine circumstances where things can change rapidly and where families and their loved ones need to respond quickly, make adjustments and apply for measures such as this. That should not take months. It should be relatively straightforward but, obviously, for that to happen, the application needs to be straightforward and there need to be supports.

I ask the Minister of State to take that request back to the Department and relay the feedback I have given. This is an important service and an important reform of an antiquated system, which I am glad to see, but some of those teething problems seem to be real.

It is very important that we articulate lived experiences, especially when going through a new system, so if the Deputy wants to give me the details of the person in question, I will absolutely bring them to the attention of the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman. It is important also that a steering group would see challenges. We know, as constituency TDs holding clinics, how circumstances can change rapidly in the lives of people going through difficult times, and it is important that the system support that in a user-friendly manner. If the Deputy wants to email me details of the case, I will happily raise it with the Minister and point out that it was raised as a Topical Issue.

Imagine that, a Cheann Comhairle. This is regarding the CIÉ superannuation scheme of 1951 and the impact on 2,279 CIÉ salaried workers. A number of these people visited our group in Leinster House 2000 a couple of weeks ago, one of them being Christy Murphy from Tralee, who was an inspector in his time and managed school transport for CIÉ, and there were a number of ladies with him who had very important roles in their time. They operated as inspectors, supervisors or managers and an awful lot of responsibility was placed on their shoulders. They had to be loyal and fair to all those they dealt with and maintain the highest standards and efficiencies in their operations.

Current beneficiaries of the scheme who were employed pre-1995 were compelled to contribute PRSI at the class D rate and, therefore, unlike class A contributors, they have no entitlement to the contributory State pension nor its associated benefits, such as the fuel allowance, the living alone allowance or any of the other allowances you would get if you were on a State pension. The contributory State pension payment has increased by approximately €54 per week since 2008. If the payment is sanctioned, such increases will be paid to pensioners from the end of July. No increase has been granted by the CIÉ board to pensions and payments since 2008, more than 15 years ago.

The salaries of current CIÉ company workers have increased since 2016 but there has been no increase for these honest, hard-working people who gave their loyalty to CIÉ. The Government is the principal shareholder in CIÉ. I know the Minister of State does not work at the Department in question but I am relying on him to bring the case forward to the line Minister, put it on the table and ask him to deal with it. Seventy-four of these people are women who now find themselves paid a lower pension than they would be paid if they were on the contributory State pension. Not to mind the pensions they were entitled to when they retired, they are not getting that at all.

Legal proceedings were held in the High Court in May 2022 regarding CIÉ's obligations on funding the scheme. Judgment is awaited and the case is due for mention in January 2024. God almighty, these people are now in their 80s. I am not blaming the Minister of State at all, but keeping them from the middle of May of last year until January next year just to have the case mentioned is not fair play. These people deserve much better than that, and I again appeal to the Minister of State about this. It involves more than 2,200 people in their 80s. Is it possible that these people would get their pensions increased at the same rate at which the State pension has been increased since 2008?

Absolutely.

I thank Deputy Healy-Rae for raising this important matter, which I am taking on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Ryan. I would like to clarify that issues in respect of Córas Iompair Éireann pension schemes are primarily a matter for the trustees of the pension schemes, the CIÉ Group and its employees. The employees of the CIÉ Group companies, namely, Bus Átha Cliath, Bus Éireann, Iarnród Éireann and CIÉ, are provided with pension benefits on retirement from one of two schemes, namely, the regular wages scheme, which covers front-line staff such as bus and train drivers in the three CIÉ companies, and the 1951 scheme, which mainly covers administrative staff. The 1951 scheme is the last remaining open and unchanged defined benefit pension scheme in the State.

Pension schemes are required to annually measure their liabilities in accordance with accounting standards and the statutory minimum funding standard. As of the end of December 2022, the balance sheet deficit for these two defined benefit pension schemes was €396.5 million. While the funding position improved during 2022, and the 1951 scheme now meets the minimum funding standard required by the Pensions Authority, the regular wages scheme currently does not meet the minimum funding standard and the funding level is marginal and subject to future market volatility.

I understand that under the accounting standards, the CIÉ pension schemes have the largest deficit of any company in Ireland. I further understand that the CIÉ Group is actively engaged in introducing changes to its pension schemes aimed at rectifying the significant deficit in order to meet the statutory minimum funding standard, and that these changes also aim to sustain the pension schemes into the long term.

In respect of the regular wages scheme, I am advised the Minister for Transport signed three statutory instruments related to the scheme on 6 July 2022, with an operative date of 18 July 2022. The main change introduced under this statutory instrument was an increase in the retirement age of members of this scheme from 60 to 65 years of age.

Regarding the 1951 scheme, I understand that CIÉ has prepared and submitted a draft statutory instrument to give effect to Labour Court recommendations for the 1951 scheme, as passed by a ballot of trade union members in May 2021. This is being considered by the Department of Transport in conjunction with advisers in NewERA. The key changes proposed would introduce an increase in the age of retirement from 60 to 63 years of age. The Deputy may also be aware the rules governing the 1951 scheme are currently subject to ongoing legal proceedings before the Commercial Court, and the 1951 committee is seeking an interpretation of a rule of the scheme from that court. The hearing commenced on 24 May 2022 and ran for four days, and the outcome from the hearing is expected in the coming months.

I am advised that the proceedings are next due for mention before the Commercial Court on 24 January 2024.

Concerning pension increases for CIÉ pensioners, I reassure the Deputy that the Minister for Transport recognises that it must be incredibly frustrating for the 2,270 CIÉ-salaried pensioners that the State contributory pension payment has increased by approximately €54 since 2008, while there has been no such increase in their pensions over the same period, and that this must be particularly frustrating for the 72 female members of CIÉ pension schemes whose monthly pension is significantly less than the State contributory pension.

I am advised that an increase for pensioners would only be possible when the schemes are capable of sustaining such increases. Furthermore, any such proposal would be dependent on the advice of the scheme actuary at the time an increase is proposed, and it would be done in agreement with the trustees of the schemes. However, it is my understanding that until such time as schemes can sustainably afford pension increases, pension increases are, regrettably, not possible.

In light of the dedicated service these people gave, all we are here for is to see that fair play is given to everyone who comes to us. This is a very serious matter. The Minister of State said it was before the Labour Court, but it has been going on for so long and these people are so old. They are now at an age when they want fair play. If this carries on for two or three more years, how many of them will die away? Is that what CIÉ wants? I ask the Minister of State to intervene to ensure fair play is administered to these people.

Independent actuaries, Willis Towers Watson, reported on 25 October this year that the 1951 scheme is capable of awarding a moderate level of increase of 2.6% to current pensioners in 2023, without impacting on the scheme's long-term sustainability, and is capable of awarding similar increases year on year for the next ten years. As these people have not been treated fairly for the past 15 years, I ask the Minister of State to intervene to ensure they are rewarded, compensated or remunerated in the same way that all other pensioners of the same grade were in every other department. At the time they started, CIÉ was a State body. Now it is controlled through the Government still being the major shareholder. We have a role to play. I appeal to the Minister of State to do his best for these honourable people.

I reassure the Deputy that the Minister for Transport and his officials are working closely with CIÉ to seek a resolution to the ongoing pension issues in the group. I am also advised that the key step to resolving the CIÉ pension deficit and, therefore, towards making pension increases payable is to implement the Labour Court recommendation that has previously been accepted in a ballot of the CIÉ trade union group. The Labour Court recommendation also contained an ex gratia payment of €1 million to pensioners below the living wage, across both CIÉ pension schemes, which has already been implemented in a Workplace Relations Commission agreement in respect of the regular wages scheme for front-line staff.

Unfortunately, the conclusion of the 1951 scheme’s actuary was that there was insufficient headroom in the minimum funding standard level required and, due to the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the 1951 committee High Court case, it would not be prudent to award a pension increase at the current time. CIÉ began the process of amending the statutory instruments that govern the rules of the 1951 scheme to implement the Labour Court recommendation in July 2021. This process involves several formal stages, including a statutory observation period and a review period by the Department of Transport, the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform, and NewERA. The implementation of the Labour Court recommendations protects the 1951 scheme and keeps it open. The CIÉ board has also advised the Department of Transport that if the Labour Court recommendation is not implemented, they will close the 1951 scheme to new entrants and future accrual.

On behalf of the Minister, I again acknowledge Deputy Healy-Rae for bringing this issue forward. I assure him his concerns have been heard. I will also convey the points raised to the Minister.

I will say something else. We have just done something that I do not think we would ever have done before. I thank the Minister of State for being here to deal with this. I acknowledge that he and the Minister, Deputy Ryan, are unfailingly helpful in dealing with the House and Members. I also acknowledge that, routinely, when matters relating to transport are tabled for Topical Issues, we get a call from the Department of Transport to say it has no responsibility for them.

We have just had a debate about something that is before the courts. It is a basic principle of the operations of this place that we do not discuss matters that are sub judice. It is very interesting that the officials who wanted us to not engage with this Topical Issue because it was not a matter for them did not see fit to tell us that this was a matter that was before the courts. It only became clear when the Minister of State's response was being given in the aftermath of Deputy Healy-Rae's contribution. I consider this a profoundly serious matter that needs to be raised with the Secretary General in the Department of Transport because what has transpired here should not transpire.

The fourth Topical Issue, which also concerns a very important matter, has been tabled by Deputy Cannon. He wishes to discuss the serious deficit in public transport links between Loughrea and Galway city. The Department of Transport told us it was not responsible for this either.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing this Topical Issue to be taken and the Minister of State for being here at such a late hour. I am delighted to bring proceedings to a close. It has been a very long day in Dáil Éireann.

This is a major issue for the people of Loughrea town. It has been for a considerable period ever since July 2021, when Bus Éireann decided to completely withdraw its X20 service, which is essentially the Expressway service connecting Dublin city to Galway city. It passed regularly to and from Loughrea town every day. That service was then cancelled. It was a purely commercial decision taken by Bus Éireann. It said the route was not viable and it would no longer be able to operate it. Thankfully, the good people at Citylink, a private entity, stepped into the breach and vacuum, and the company has done sterling work in providing a service to the best of its ability.

At this point, however, we have a situation whereby a large town, which between the town itself and its immediate environs has a population of approximately 8,000 people, has exceptionally poor public service transport connectivity between it and its neighbouring city, Galway. This is so much so that from 6.30 p.m. there is no further public transport service connecting Galway city to Loughrea. A student, worker, or somebody who wants to spend some time in his or her local city socialising in the evening may get into Galway city but will certainly have no way home and will be stranded. That is affecting so many people in how they interact with their local city. We know from CSO data that of those 8,000 people, approximately 700 to 800 of them commute to Galway city every day for either work or study.

At a time when we are quite rightly seeking to encourage and persuade people to effect that important modal shift to leave their cars at home and avail of public service transport, we find ourselves in a situation where the people in Loughrea town who might choose to do exactly that are left with no option but to take their car or remain at home and not make that visit to their local city. Loughrea, at this point, is a de facto suburb of Galway city. As I said, it has about 8,000 people. It is roughly a 20- to 25-minute drive from Loughrea to Galway city. In Dublin, for example, there are many such suburbs that enjoy far greater and far more efficient connectivity between them and their capital city. There is no reason whatsoever Loughrea should not enjoy the same support as regards public transport.

I have met the CEO of the National Transport Authority to impress upon her the urgency of resolving this matter. It requires her and the NTA, with the support of the Department of Transport, to invest in a PSO option or subsidy that would extend the service beyond 6.30 p.m. so that people can and should avail of that service.

I regularly use the Galway to Dublin train service and with the recent reduction in fares and the huge reliability and frequency of services between Athenry and Dublin, I find that train is packed for the seven days of the week. It proves conclusively that if people are provided with a reliable, efficient and cost-effective public transport option, they will use it but, sadly, at this point in time the people of Loughrea have no such option in terms of connectivity with their local city.

I thank Deputy Cannon for raising this very important topic, which I know he has a great interest in and has been fighting for. From the outset, I would like to clarify that the Minister for Transport has responsibility for policy and overall funding for public transport but neither the Minister nor his officials are involved in the day-to-day operation of public transport services. The statutory responsibility for securing the provision of public passenger transport services nationally rests with the National Transport Authority. The NTA works with the public transport operators, which deliver the services and which have responsibility for day-to-day operational matters.

That said, I reassure Deputy Cannon that the Government is strongly committed to providing all citizens with reliable and realistic sustainable mobility options and public transport plays a key role in the delivery of this goal. To support this objective, in budget 2023, the Department of Transport secured €563.55 million of funding for public service obligation, PSO, and Transport for Ireland, TFI, Local Link services, an increase from €538 million in 2022. More recently, under budget 2024, a funding package of circa €611.813 million has been secured for PSO and Local Link services. This includes funding for the continuation of the 20% fare reduction on PSO services, the young adult card on both PSO and commercial bus services, and the 90-minute fare until the end of 2024. Funding has also been secured to support new and enhanced bus and rail services next year.

As the Deputy will be aware, the Government is committed to improving public transport and is backing up that commitment with significant investments across the network. I understand that the majority of public transport links between Loughrea and Galway city are provided by two commercial operators, with some linkages with the PSO network in the city. The main service currently available to passengers is Citylink's bus route 763 between Galway Coach Station and Dublin Airport, which operates nine times daily. Passengers can also travel between Loughrea and Galway on Healy Bus's 920 service which operates four times daily between Galway and Loughrea. Bus Éireann also operates the 404 bus route from Eyre Square to Newcastle and the 409 bus route from Eyre Square to Parkmore Industrial Estate at ten or 15 minute intervals throughout the day, which passengers can transfer from at GMIT to one of the services provided by Healy Bus.

I further understand that BusConnects Galway will be a major enhancement to the bus system in Galway, comprising changes to the network, bus fleet, ticketing, bus shelters and poles, and the development of bus lanes and other bus priority measures. The largest part of the programme is the development of bus priority measures and bus lanes throughout the city. Key elements of that programme are currently under development, namely the cross-city link project and the Dublin Road scheme. The Salmon Weir Bridge for pedestrians and cyclists was also officially opened to the public in May. The Salmon Weir Bridge project is a new pedestrian and cycle bridge located between Gaol Road and Newtownsmith in Galway city centre and crosses the Lower Corrib river adjacent to the existing Salmon Weir Bridge.

The cross-city link is a 6.7 km scheme that aims to create a sustainable transport corridor from the north east of Galway to the north west, crossing the Salmon Weir Bridge. It includes the creation of a dedicated bus gate over the Salmon Weir Bridge, reallocation of road space away from private vehicles, and the provision of segregated cycling infrastructure and upgraded pedestrian facilities. Once complete, bus routes will be modified to use the high-quality corridor and create an interchange hub at Eyre Square.

The Dublin Road scheme will deliver 4 km of high-quality pedestrian, cyclist and public transport infrastructure along a key transport corridor on the east of the city, from the Martin roundabout to Moneenageisha junction.

I also reassure Deputy Cannon that the Department of Transport, the NTA and the operators are working to ensure the optimised deployment of resources across the public transport network to match changing passenger demand patterns.

Additionally, under budget 2024, the Department has allocated €15 million for the development of Ceannt Station and €1.5 million for the development of Oranmore Station.

I thank the Minister of State. The Ceann Comhairle outlined earlier the tendency at times for departmental officials to abdicate responsibility in certain policy areas and I think this opening statement attempts to do that at the very beginning. It clarifies that the Minister for Transport and his officials are not involved in the day-to-day operation of public transport services, but they do set the policy. They do set parameters and targets. I have great admiration for the work the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, is doing in this area and he has set very ambitious targets for effecting that modal shift and getting people out of their cars and onto public transport. However, if the people of Loughrea have no option to do so in the latter part of each day, after 6.30 p.m., the NTA is failing in its responsibility to implement that policy. I strongly argue that the Minister has a responsibility to ensure that those charged with delivering public transport options across the country need to be held to account by him and his officials.

The Minister of State also outlined that a funding package of €611 million was secured, which is again most welcome work on the part of the Minister for PSO and Local Link services. I have been arguing for quite a long time now that the PSO support needs to be extended to an operator. The Minister of State has outlined that there are two operators on the service already: Citylink and Healy Bus. Why can they not be asked if they are willing to operate a service later in the evening for the people of Loughrea and, if so, that the Department is willing to subsidise them? I know there may be issues around tendering and state aid but I am sure we could streamline the process to the greatest possible extent.

The latter part of the reply again outlines some very welcome developments that are happening in Galway city, completely unrelated to the lack of connectivity between Loughrea and the city. I thank the Minister of State for being here. I urge him to engage with the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and to impress upon him the importance of putting in place an adequate bus and public transport link between Galway city and a town approaching 8,000 people so that people can get home after 6.30 p.m. in the evening. That is all we are asking for. It cannot be that difficult to achieve in a country with the resources we have and with the clever people we have working in the provision of public transport.

I thank Deputy Cannon for putting a very robust case on the record of the House. I will relay that to the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and his thoughts on the content of the response from the Department on the policy perspective and the delivery of key services to his community.

The Minister for Transport believes in expanding the public transport network and increasing service levels throughout the country in the ways set out in policies like Connecting Ireland and BusConnects.

The Connecting Ireland Rural Mobility Plan 2022-2025 is a major national public transport initiative with the aim of increasing public transport connectivity, particularly for people living outside the major cities and towns. More than 100 rural villages will benefit from frequent public transport service, at least three return trips daily, for the first time. The plan will also see a 25% overall increase in rural bus services, and more than 60 new connections to regional cities from surrounding areas.

Collectively, these measures will not only further improve connectivity in the area but will provide viable alternatives to the private car for those living in the region. In addition to the plans under BusConnects, I understand that at present, the NTA's park and ride office has identified two optimal locations in close proximity to junction 19 on the N6 for new park-and-ride facilities which are currently being explored. Planning for enhanced infrastructure to facilitate the expansion of rail-based park and ride at Oranmore Station is separately being undertaken by Irish Rail in conjunction with the NTA's park and ride office. These two strategic park-and-ride locations will be served by a new dedicated bus service. This new service will require some additional bus priority to connect with the proposed Galway BusConnects proposal but, in the large, will use significant sections of the proposed Galway BusConnects to access the city centre. This will provide additional transport options to people commuting to Galway city.