(Cavan-Monaghan): asked the Taoiseach the member of the Government who is responsible to the Dáil for each of the following services: water supplies, main road works, environmental employment schemes, and refuse collection.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Services Responsibility.
3.
The local authorities are the bodies statutorily responsible for the provision of the services referred to in the Deputy's question.
The Minister for the Environment is the member of the Government primarily responsible to the Dáil for the moneys voted in respect of those services.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Am I to take it from that reply that the Minister for the Environment is answerable to the Dáil for the maintenance of such services as water supplies, main roads, refuse collection and environmental employment schemes?
My answer was very specific.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I do not think so. Is the Minister for the Environment answerable to this House for these services?
He is responsible for the moneys voted in respect of these services.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Am I right in assuming that if these services were to break down completely or if a local authority failed to discharge their functions, the Minister for the Environment would have the power to remove them from office? Has this not happened before?
The Minister has certain powers in respect of local authorities not discharging their statutory functions.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Having regard to the fact that this House votes approximately 66 per cent of the revenue of local authorities, is it not only reasonable to assume that the Minister for the Environment is answerable to this House for the provision of the services I have mentioned?
Broadly speaking he is so responsible but he is responsible for expenditure of the moneys.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is the Taoiseach aware that the services mentioned in the question have either broken down entirely in some areas or are in the course of breaking down in other areas? Is the Taoiseach aware also that I have made a number of attempts towards persuading the Minister for the Environment to clarify the position in regard to these services but that he has disclaimed liability and responsibility in this regard and has refused to come into the House to clarify the matter either by way of reply to a Private Member's Question or by way of an Adjournment Debate?
Regarding the Deputy's sweeping statement that the services have either broken down or are about to break down, I would point out that the water supply situation has been overcome.
No thanks to the Taoiseach for that.
Order.
The Deputies opposite are not interested in hearing facts. In what respect have main roads maintenance schemes or refuse collection schemes broken down? I do not think that environmental employment schemes have broken down either. All these matters are either being negotiated or have been settled. In addition, the Employer-Labour Conference are meeting tomorrow to discuss the industrial action or the go slow, whichever way one wishes to describe it, of local government engineers. Therefore, this would be a wrong time for debating this matter by way of question and answer.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is the Taoiseach not aware that work on the main roads which involves the engineers has come to a standstill in many areas? Surely the Taoiseach is aware that notwithstanding the partial settlement of the water services problem, there remains grave difficulty in this respect not only in this city but in Cork and elsewhere. Is he not aware also that refuse collections in places such as Tralee and Galway, and I understand also Cork and Waterford, are affected badly and that because the engineers are not operating the environmental employment scheme, unemployment has resulted?
The Deputy is making a long statement, a practice that I have warned against so far as Question Time is concerned.
The Deputy tends to make speeches.
If everyone were to adopt the practice of these long statements and to give information rather than to seek it, progress would not be made at Question Time.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Taoiseach has been more forthcoming than his Minister has been during the past week. In view of what I have said, is it not reasonable to expect the Minister for the Environment to make a statement in the House on this whole matter and to discuss it with the House in order to put the people at ease?
Question No. 4.
Since there are implications in what the Deputy has said that should not be allowed to go without answer, I seek your permission to reply.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am delighted.
I deplore the fact that the action taken by the engineers in the local authority service is having a depressing effect on employment schemes. I am also conscious of the fact that there is an attempt made, through the ordinary industrial relations channel, to resolve this difficulty which has arisen as a result of the action taken by the local government engineers. It ought to be common cause in this House that we should give the statutory procedures which this House has adopted every opportunity to resolve these matters. If Ministers dashed in on every occasion for the sake of getting public kudos or otherwise or in a reasonable attempt to overcome the problem, we could scrap all these institutions which this House has set up and for which we pay very heavily by way of taxation.
(Cavan-Monaghan): One final question.
We have had enough questions.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Taoiseach has been fairer with the House than the Government have been for some time.
A brief question please.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Arising out of what the Taoiseach said, I assume he is aware that the dispute which has given rise to the difficulties with the engineers has been going on since 1967?
1975.
(Cavan-Monaghan): As the Minister did not answer my questions he should not answer now by way of interruption. Is the Taoiseach also aware that this whole matter reached a climax when, on 21 September last, it was agreed between the staff side and the engineers that the whole matter would be referred to a three-man commission and that the staff side, under the Minister, agreed to that, and that eight days later that agreement was gone back on?
With all due respect to the Deputy, and I do not want to curtail his questioning, his line of action is not conducive to effecting a settlement of this strike because he is talking about not only the merits of the strike but of the merits of proposals which have been suggested, but which have not yet been agreed. The Deputy is being anything but helpful.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am not——
I am calling question No. 4.