(Cavan-Monaghan) asked the Minister for the Environment (a) what functions, if any, will be discharged by the Department of the Environment that were not previously discharged by the Department of Local Government, (b) whether any functions have been transferred to the new Department or from it to other Departments, (c) whether any changes of staff, numerically or otherwise have taken place in the Department and (d) whether the change of name implies any changes of policy; and, if so, the nature of such changes.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Labour Force.
2.
When the Taoiseach advised the Dáil on 5th July of the intention to re-title the Department of Local Government as the Department of the Environment, his statement showed that this was being done to indicate that my Department would have primary responsibility for environmental matters and that this was appropriate because of their widespread functions in building, the provision of roads and other amenities and services. The only transfer of functions affecting the re-titled Department which was envisaged as a possibility in the Taoiseach's statement was a transfer of tourism functions. On further consideration of that proposal, it was decided not to proceed with it because of the direct and very important link between tourism and transport, and I understand that the Fine Gael spokesman on tourism was quoted as agreeing with that.
Responsibility in respect of matters of environmental concern is necessarily spread over a number of Departments and agencies, and it was never envisaged that all this would be concentrated in one Department, which would have to be very large indeed. What is important is that all Departments and agencies should advert to the environmental aspect of their operations. Again, it is desirable that a particular department should be indicated as having primary responsibility. This has been done and the question of any consequential arrangements is being examined. At this stage no staff changes have been necessary.
In the meantime, my Department will continue to play their very important and positive environmental role, operating primarily through the local authority system which provides not only a range of key environmental services, but also operates the physical planning system. The Department will also continue their general co-ordinating role, particularly in relation to dealings with international bodies including the European Economic Communities.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I tabled this question to the Taoiseach because I considered him to be the proper person to explain the setting up of a new Department. However, the Minister may well agree with me it is easy to see why the Taoiseach hived off the question.
Has the Deputy a question?
(Cavan-Monaghan): Am I correct in thinking that the new Department have no new function, that no function has been transferred to them, that they have no additional staff, that there is no change in policy and that all we have in the Department of the Environment is new notepaper and a new set of rubber stamps? Is that not a fair summary of what the Minister has said?
Of course they got a new Minister, too.
Deputy Fitzpatrick's remarks are not a fair summary of what I said.
Perhaps they have not got the notepaper yet.
For a good deal of time past it has been a matter for much criticism that no Department had responsibility for environmental matters and that, consequently, such matters were spread among many Departments, for instance, the Office of Public Works, Lands, Industry and Commerce to some extent, Agriculture and many others. In setting up this new Department the Taoiseach made us responsible primarily for matters of the environment. This is only normal considering that local authorities who come under the jurisdiction of this Department play such an important role in environmental matters, not only in relation to planning but to water and sewerage schemes and the many other facets of the whole infrastructure.
It is my duty to co-ordinate the environmental efforts and responsibilities of the other Departments involved. I intend to do this by a process of co-operation and co-ordination. However, it may well be that at some time in the future it may be considered wise to assume some of the functions of one or more of the Departments involved. In the meantime it is totally wrong to say that all that is involved is a change of notepaper and of stamps.
Regarding the point made by the Deputy of there being no increase in staff, the position is that it has not been found necessary to increase the staff but that does not necessarily mean that there are not staff within my Department dealing with environmental matters.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I have sympathy with the Minister. He has been given a brand new title but nothing else. Can he tell the House what change has taken place in the Custom House in regard to the environment, what functions he is performing in this regard that Deputy Tully or Deputy Molloy were not performing during their terms in office? Is not the whole effort merely a bit of gimmickry in an effort to pretend that we have a new Department?
I would remind the Deputy that I have been in the Custom House for four months only whereas my predecessor spent four-and-a-half years there. In those four months we have initiated the business of the environment—so far, without extra staff. All matters in this sphere are under examination. Also being examined is the question of further duties for the Department.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I appreciate that the Minister has been in office for only a very short time but surely the think-tank were working on this for four years and was not the whole idea presented to the House as something that had been thought out, that was operative——
The Deputy is making a speech.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I could not help noticing the presence of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development when this question was being taken. Perhaps the Minister owes an apology to the Minister for the Environment.
I sympathise with the Minister in his new and difficult job.
I am not looking for sympathy.
Blessed are they who do not ask but who receive.
The Minister said that the decision announced by the Taoiseach to transfer tourism to the new Department was reversed subsequently because of the strong connection between tourism and transport. Equally, one could argue that there is a strong connection between tourism and revenue. Is it not true that the real reason for tourism not being connected with the Department of the Environment was as a result of the row kicked up in the emasculated Department of Transport and Power, formerly, where energy was stripped from them and where it was realised that if tourism was taken from them also——
The Deputy may not make a statement. Before the Minister replies I wish to make it clear that I will not permit questions which in fact contain long statements. As I have said so many times, there are many questions for answer: many Deputies are seeking information but some Deputies are monopolising Question Time by merely making long statements which in some cases are irrelevant. Questions are permissible but not statements.
Deputy Quinn's question is more appropriate for the Minister for Transport and Tourism. I have no jurisdiction over his Department. I referred merely to the change.
In view of the Minister having told the House that responsibility for environmental matters is spread and will continue to spread among several different Departments and that his job will be to co-ordinate this activity, can he give the House one example of his co-ordinating activity during the past four months? Secondly, where in the name of goodness, did he find the word "comhshaol"? Has such a word ever been used by a born Irish speaker since the world began?
To answer the second part of the question first, I did not find the word. It was found by the translators.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It was inflicted on the Minister in the same way as the Department was inflicted on him.
There is no such word.
The Minister must not forget to answer the first part of the question.
With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, that should be a separate question.
Since it is a separate question, the Minister need not answer it.
I have been in continuous communication with the Departments concerned in so far as co-ordination and co-operation are concerned.
Did not the Minister's predecessor perform the same work? Is the Minister telling the House that he has a new co-ordinating role and that that differentiates his Department from the old one? Can the Minister give the House an example of his co-ordinating work that could be considered different from the work of the previous Minister?
I am surprised at Deputy Kelly, who is familiar with the rules of the House, making long statements instead of asking supplementary questions which should be short, relevant and to the point.
I would like to ask the Minister to give an example or to show in some quantitative way even one scintilla of practical difference contained in the widened definition of his new——
This question has been asked three times in different ways.
It has not been answered.
That is not my duty.
Will the Minister answer the question?
I would recommend to the Deputy that he would ask me that in about four months.
We are getting on the right road now.
Next question.
The Minister has said that he is only four months in office and he has not had the time.
I said I had been examining it.
I know that, but no functions have been transferred from other Departments. When such happens would the Minister make a statement saying what functions were transferred and from what Departments?
I suggest that the Deputy put a question when he thinks it appropriate and I will tell him.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is it good enough for the two Ministers, the Minister for the Environment aided and abetted by the bright young man who invented the Department to come in here——
When the Minister is speaking Deputies must resume their seats.
Is this not an elaborate exercise in eye-wash?
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.