asked the Minister for the Environment the reason he will not enter into discussions with the Local Government Union regarding arrangements for the collection of local authority service charges in 1984; and if he will make a statement regarding the embargo on collection of these charges.

I understand that the Local Government and Public Services Union has issued an instruction to its branches to the effect that members are not to co-operate in the collection of new charges for local authority services. While I am not as yet aware of the full effects of this instruction, it could, if implemented, have serious consequences for the provision of local authority services and employment.

This action appears to be linked by the union to a request for discussions on the problem of rationalising rate and revenue collection arrangements. As the Deputy is aware, most rate collectors in rural areas, while receiving full pay, have insufficient work to do, consequent on the abolition of rates on domestic dwellings and agricultural land. Efforts by management to resolve this issue on a voluntary basis have so far failed. The collection of 1983 charges was the subject of discussions between management and the union under the aegis of the Local Government Staff Negotiations Board. It was agreed at these discussions that the union would co-operate in the collection of these charges and that further discussions would be held between both sides on the rationalisation question. It is a matter for the board and the union to arrange these further discussions. Certain aspects of the management side's position are, however, now being considered further with a view to the holding of these discussions at the earliest possible date. Any meeting between the union and me on the subject would, therefore, be premature at this stage.

Whatever we may think about the merits of the charges, surely the Minister must agree that it is most unsatisfactory that a dispute of this nature was allowed to continue for so long. Will he intervene in this dispute to arrange for an early settlement? Will he meet with the representatives of the union to discuss the matter?

The policy I followed to good effect when I was in the Department of Labour was that I was reluctant to intervene when discussions were still going on. In this case it would not be prudent to intervene until the subject has been discussed between the union and management. If there is still a difficulty then I will consider the Deputy's suggestion.

The Minister mentioned the letter which was sent out to each branch secretary of the union informing them that the management side decided it would not meet with the union. In view of that surely it would be appropriate for the Minister to intervene.

Certain aspects of this problem on the management side are being considered with a view to further discussions at the earliest possible time.

Does the Minister not consider that the initiative in this matter lies with him in view of the fact that he is paying rate collectors whose job in 90 per cent of cases ceased four years ago? As a result of this there is a desperate drain on public finances. The Minister has been very lax in his efforts to have the dispute solved.

That is argument.

I am aware of the problems that have been hanging over for four years in my Department and now that I have to tackle them——

It has taken the Minister two years.

It is time to have an urgent look at the cost of rate collection. In reply to a question recently it was stated that it cost £1 to collect £3 in some countries. Is it not time that the whole system was examined?

That is exactly what is happening. Normal discussions must take place between members of the union and management. It will be done through the normal relationship that exists between a union and management.

Is it not true that the union have been pushing for rationalisation of revenue collecting by the local authorities which naturally affects their members and have been seeking the appointment of revenue collectors as a new post within local authorities? These matters were under discussion but the management side failed to make any progress on them or give any positive suggestions regarding them other than deciding not to have talks with the union.

This is developing into a discussion on the pros and cons of the argument. One side is being given by Deputies opposite. I would prefer to see the people involved going ahead with the job rather than Members in the Chamber doing the work assigned to other people in my Department.

Does the Minister accept that in many instances they are not getting on with the job? They are making a hames of it. It is time somebody stepped in and rapped them over the knuckles. One has only to look at the difference in the cost of the collection of rates in each county——

I agree, but this situation has existed for too long — long before I came into the Department. Other Ministers were in this Department before me.

No charges. This Minister brought in the charges.

Would the Minister agree that we have this problem because of the elimination of rates and the lack of consultation with the trade unions at that stage in regard to how the rate collectors might be deployed?

The elimination of domestic rates raised the initial problem, but the High Court case which removed rates from the land has brought the problem to its present serious situation. This is what we are trying to resolve.