asked the Minister for Communications if in view of the selective hardship being imposed on commuters in Dublin North-West and especially in the Finglas-Glasnevin area, he will arrange for the immediate introduction of Army emergency transport to cater for the sufferers in question.
Private Notice Question. - Army Emergency Transport.
I understand that the proposals put at the Labour Court conciliation hearing in regard to this dispute were not acceptable to CIE and that the proposal by the conciliation service for referring the matter to a full hearing of the court is now being considered by the trade unions involved. I am keeping the situation under review but at this stage no decision has been taken in relation to the provisions by the Army of emergency transport.
Is that not cold comfort to the people living in that district who have no rail transport or any other form of transport and who already have suffered catastrophic personal consequences? I am talking about young people who are unable, because of the dispute, to be present for departmental examinations or university examinations, of ladies who cannot keep appointments at hospitals and so on. Would the Minister not accept that he can no longer deprive the people of that area of what is their entitlement in the matter of transport.
I am extremely conscious of the hardship generally and of the particular types of hardship to which the Deputy refers but I think he will agree that we are talking of an extremely sensitive area. I am confident that he, like all of us, wishes for a solution to the dispute but any form of intervention at this time could be counterproductive.
Restore the bus service.
Overall it would be best if the parties involved settled the issue. I am hopeful that that will happen.
Would the Minister accept that our sensitivity to other people can become frayed and that we would expect that the Government as well as the management and trade unions concerned——
This is argument.
——would begin to show sensitivity towards the people who are affected? We must not forget that the buses belong to the people. They do not belong to the management, to the unions or to the Government. There is an obligation on this House to ensure that either the bus service or an alternative service is provided.
We are all conscious of the difficulties but we must not do anything to exacerbate them. I am confident that good sense will prevail and that a solution will be forthcoming. No decision has been taken in relation to the provisions of emergency transport by the Army and I think that is the wisest course at this point.
How much more time is to elapse before the Minister intervenes? Is he aware of the unusually high dependence in the area on public transport, and also that it is an area which has suffered interference with its transport services in the past number of years? For the past 18 months the area has not had a late night bus service.
This is a long question.
Would the Minister not agree that the people of the area have suffered enough and that he should intervene with a view to alleviating the hardship being caused by the current dispute?
One of the difficulties is that proportionately such a large number of people in the area rely on public transport. A proposal by the conciliation service to have the matter referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court is being considered by the unions involved. I understand that the Labour Court in due course are to advise CIE of the union's response.
Is it not something of an imposition on the people in the area that they should have to bear with us in whatever sensitivity we have for people other than they? We seem not to be demonstrating the sensitivity to which they would be entitled.
That is not a question.
The Deputy will be aware that in certain cases diplomacy is very valuable and that intervention could exacerbate the situation instead of bringing about the very desirable result the Deputy is pleading for. We are keeping the matter under constant review, on an hourly basis in fact, and we will take whatever action is considered appropriate but we must take the correct decision and not one we might be rushed into taking at any time.
Would the Minister agree that his reply will give little comfort to the people in the area concerned? These people are frustrated with the inadequacy of the service provided for them by CIE.
The Deputy should lay the blame with the Government.
Is the Minister aware that the people of the area have called on the Minister for Communications to allow a private bus service to operate in the area to provide, first, a service in the evenings and, secondly, a service in the sort of situation we are talking about?
I thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me to raise this Private Notice Question and I am seeking permission to raise it also on the Adjournment.
The Chair will consider the Deputy's request with all the other requests that have been made for Questions on the Adjournment and will communicate with him.
I should like to raise on the Adjournment the matter of the very serious situation in the Kilnamanagh area of Tallaght arising from the non-availability of post-primary education.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
I should like to raise on the Adjournment the serious position of British contributory pensioners living here who have not received their pensions for the past ten weeks because of a strike at Newcastle-on-Tyne.
The Chair will communicate with Deputy Gallagher.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the question of the closure of Hanley's bacon factory and the serious repercussions it will have for pig producers in the south.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
I wish to support Deputy Andrews's request for a debate on the mental hospital——
I cannot allow a new practice of supporting questions to develop.
It is a welcome marriage.
This is what we are looking for: closer party co-operation.