asked the Minister for Labour whether he is aware of the overburdening of the Labour Court, its inability to process claims quickly enough, and consequently the long-protracted dispute regarding refuse disposal, and the ensuing danger to health from the thousands of tonnes of garbage presently littering Dublin streets; if he proposes to intervene, in view of the major health threat and the increasing anxieties of parents of small children who are now obliged to keep their children indoors due to bags of refuse littering the streets; and whether in view of the urgent and growing threat to public health, there is any prospect of a Government initiative to bring this dispute to a speedy resolution.

I cannot accept the suggestion that the industrial dispute affecting refuse collection in Dublin was attributable to any inadequacies in the Labour Court. In fact, the court issued its recommendation in this case on 15 March last, and the situation referred to in the question developed after that date. The terms of the court's recommendation were not accepted by the unions, and industrial action then took place.

The parties to the dispute met on 28 May 1979 but settlement proposals which emerged were not acceptable to the workers involved. Meetings between the parties have since been continuing, the latest of which commenced on Tuesday, 12 June. Proposals for the settlement of the dispute are at present under consideration by the parties.

Does the Minister accept that the situation as outlined in the question exists, that there is a very serious cause of anxiety to parents with small children because they have to keep them indoors and also that there is a growing plague of rats in the city of Dublin? Is the Minister aware of that and does he accept it?

I answered the question. I consider this a very serious dispute situation. As is well known, the Deputy is given to emotional statements, and I cannot be sure of the truth or otherwise of some of the claims he is making.

Has the Minister taken time to try to ascertain whether the statements in the question are accurate, in which case any suspicion that my statements were emotion-laden could be dispelled? In other words, has he bothered to find out if my statements are accurate? If not, why not?

The next question, please.

I am not finished yet.

The Chair does not encourage argument across the floor.

The Deputy had a similar question to my colleague yesterday and I understand he informed him of the initiatives taken by the Government to prevent any hazards to public health.

Is there any chance he would be good enough, interested enough or kind enough to concern himself and become personally involved in this very serious dispute to bring it to an end?

It strikes me that the Deputy did not listen to the reply. I did in fact say that meetings between the parties have been continuing. The latest one commenced on Tuesday, 12 June, and certain proposals emerged for the settlement of the dispute. They are presently under consideration by the parties. Any intervention at this stage is obviously not on.

All I know is that this dispute was not urgent enough prior to the election two weeks ago to even consider it but it is urgent enough now to bring in the army lorries.

The Deputy must be aware that the issues have been processed through the normal services. The question was referred to the Labour Court and I have pointed out to the Deputy that the suggestion that the industrial dispute was attributable to any inadequacies there is incorrect.

Is it not a fact that a serious situation is arising in all local authorities because of the amount of money they are allowed to pay to skilled craftsmen? The relative pay outside is much greater and therefore none of the local authorities can get craftsmen. Would the Minister therefore have a look at this problem so that the local authorities can do the work which they have been authorised to do by successive Governments?

Surely that is a different question from the one the Deputy put down.

(Cavan-Monaghan): In the course of his reply the Minister stated that the ordinary services had been employed to settle these strikes. Would the Minister not agree that it is quite apparent that what he calls the normal services for dealing with these strikes have broken down completely? Has he any proposals for bringing some sort of fresh approach to these matters?

That is a separate question.

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is not a separate question. It is a very relevant question.

It may be relevant but it is a separate question.

On a point of order, I wish to give notice of my intention to raise Question No. 2 on the Adjournment.

I will communicate with the Deputy.