Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Oct 1991

Vol. 411 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Navan Road (Dublin) Employment Exchange.

Emmet Stagg

Question:

1 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the substandard conditions of the social welfare employment exchange on Navan Road, Dublin 7, and the disruption that industrial action will cause to social welfare recipients attending the exchange; if he will ensure that construction on replacement offices will begin as promised by his Department; when construction will commence on replacement offices; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Tony Gregory

Question:

25 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Social Welfare if a commitment was made to provide a new building for the Navan Road employment exchange, Dublin 7; and if so, when this commitment will be honoured.

Tomás MacGiolla

Question:

27 Tomás Mac Giolla asked the Minister for Social Welfare the plans there are for the improvement and modernisation of facilities at the Navan Road employment exchange, Dublin 7, in view of the appalling conditions that have to be endured by both staff and social welfare recipients; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Austin Currie

Question:

47 Mr. Currie asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the unacceptable conditions for the public and staff at the Navan Road employment exchange, Dublin 7; and when steps will be taken to remedy the situation.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 25, 27 and 47 together.

As the Deputies will be aware, I am committed to providing the highest quality facilities and services for all our social welfare customers. My Department have in recent years, in consultation with the Office of Public Works, been engaged in a programme to provide new offices and to improve existing ones in order to ensure a high standard of accommodation and facilities for the staff and members of the public who use these offices. Good progress has been made on this programme with 17 new offices provided and a further ten extensively refurbished.

I am determined that the progress already made in improving the standard of my Department's accommodation will be maintained and in this regard, the programme is being advanced as quickly as financial and technical resources will allow.

I am aware of the problems associated with the office at Navan Road and I regard its replacement with a new office as a priority. It had been intended to start work on the new office during the current year but the commencement date has had to be deferred pending a decision on the financial allocations for 1992. However, the project is already being progressed with the recent appointment of a consultant architect to draw up an outline design which is due for completion by the end of the year. I am now in a position to confirm that a contract for the Navan Road project will be placed by mid-September next.

I am very concerned to settle the present dispute involving staff in Navan Road. Action planned by the staff for 14 October has already been deferred and negotiations with staff representatives are continuing, with a view to securing a resumption of normal working arrangements.

The Minister's reply amazes me. Is he aware that on 5 June this year he gave an undertaking in this House that work would begin on the building of the new offices at Navan Road this year? He is now telling the House that work will not even begin next year. Is he aware that this pre-fab building was designed for the reception of 3,000 members of the public each week and that there are now 8,000 people attending per week? The conditions are Dickensian, to say the least, and the strain on the staff and the public has reached the point where the staff have threatened industrial action. Can the Minister assure the House that this new undertaking, which has come on top of a pile of previous undertakings from the Minister and his Department to the staff and the public, has some type of validity? The undertaking given to this House on 5 June 1991 was of no value since work was to have been undertaken by this time.

The Deputy will be aware that the Office of Public Works are responsible for the works of my Department.

Is there not collective responsibility in Government?

To some extent we are at one remove. It transpired since June that the Office of Public Works were having difficulty establishing an acceptable unit cost for the project and could not obtain sanction to appoint consultant architects to allow planning to commence. Technical difficulties arose which have now been overcome and the architect has been appointed. We have given firm dates for the progress of the work. These dates have also been conveyed to the staff.

The Minister must be aware that Deputy Gregory and other Deputies have tabled questions on this matter because of the urgency. Will the Minister agree that this is not a technical matter? The Department of Finance pulled the rug from under the Minister's feet.

That is not a question. I am calling Question No. 2.

It is specifically a question. I want the Minister to confirm——

Please resume your seat.

Normally a Deputy is allowed at least two supplementary questions.

The Deputy has been making speeches.

I am at least entitled to ask two supplementaries.

Please resume your seat.

You are being grossly unfair.

It is the Deputy who is being unfair to his colleagues.

It is not the Deputy who is being unfair. I am at least entitled to ask two supplementary questions.

The Deputy got every chance.

You would not allow me to speak.

Deputy Stagg, you are wasting precious time.

You have wasted more time than all my supplementaries put together.

If the Deputy persists, I shall have to ask him to leave.

We will have to have injury time.

There will not be injury time any more. Deputies objected to it.

Top
Share