asked the Minister for the Environment the way in which he intends the Federation of Irish Chemical Industries to become more closely involved in emergency situations relating to the question of toxic waste disposal; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

My Department are not involved in discussions with the Federation of Irish Chemical Industries in relation to toxic waste disposal. However, a working group composed of representatives of the federation, local authorities and my Department have been considering a voluntary scheme for the provision of assistance and advice by experts in the chemical industry to the emergency services in the event of transport incidents or spillages involving dangerous substances.

Can the Minister say that what is involved here requires something more than a voluntary arrangement? The question refers to emergency situations——

Yes.

——arising from toxic waste disposal.

The Deputy will be pleased to hear that I have met on two separate occasions and at some length the people involved in this and they would have been very happy to have become involved in a voluntary arrangement except for one little difficulty that arose. Participation in the scheme might just leave themselves open to litigation if anything went wrong or the advice given by them lent itself to litigation subsequently. We thought we had it settled by way of voluntary arrangement. A little difficulty has arisen and if it can be got over by voluntary arrangement, all the better. If not it will require legislation. I am not averse to that, but if we could get it by way of the voluntary agreement, in which they are most happy to participate, I think that would be the way forward, but the intention of the Deputy's question is appreciated.

May I put it to the Minister that the apprehension that voluntary private enterprise waste disposal companies may have about the possibility of litigation decoded by the Parliament and people of this State means they do not want to be responsible for their actions and certainly do not want to be liable in a court of law for any damage that might be done to the environment as a result of their irresponsible disposal of waste, as has been the experience in privatised enterprise in Britain? Accordingly, what intentions or proposals has the Minister to ensure that any private concern who will get a favourable contract from this Government for disposal of waste would be accountable to the people — as distinct from the Government — in respect of any damage, whether accidental or negligent, that might occur to the environment as a consequence of their irresponsible management or disposal of that waste?

We are talking about transport incidences of spillages that might involve dangerous substances, and I have found the Federation of Irish Chemical Industries to be a very responsible group, responsible in that they wanted to offer every assistance possible by way of providing emergency services if called upon. They have all the knowledge about the substances, they have detailed knowledge of the type of chemicals being transported and they know how to react to the various substances. The federation were quite happy in a speedy response to give the expert advice available and are still most forthcoming in supplying us with that information and assistance. I want to get it on a regular basis, set down so that we can call on them at a moment's notice. I would have thought that eminently responsible both of the Minister and the federation. The one simple item outstanding is to give them what they would regard as the necessary cover to prevent litigation subsequently. I am happily disposed to doing that by whichever method is required.

I do not wish to be in any way antagonistic in this House or to accuse the Minister of misrepresenting a question. He attempted to suggest that what was at issue here was the transportation of waste. I remind the House, you, Sir, and him that Question No. 18 in the name of Deputy Pattison asks about emergency situations relating to the question of toxic waste disposal. Perhaps the Minister will rephrase his reply to the last supplementary in the context of what the question was, not that of the transportation of waste.

This seems to involve repetition.

I beg your pardon, A Cheann Comhairle, it does not involve repetition. The Minister attempted to suggest that I was offside in relation to the nature of the question and that the question was about the transportation of waste. The question specifically talks about disposal and the Minister has specifically evaded his responsibility——

The Deputy has already made that point.

The Minister has done something as far as waste disposal is concerned and has already announced grants to help out the private sector in that respect. He has commissioned a feasibility study as to how to deal with this matter properly in the national interest as a complete unit, a great deal more than the said Deputy himself even contemplated when he had the opportunity to do so.

I am attempting with your permission, Sir, as Ceann Comhairle of this House——

A final supplementary please. I have allowed the Deputy a great deal of latitude.

My first supplementary was scattered to the winds by the Minister on the grounds that it was not relevant to the question, that the issue in question was about transportation and not disposal. That misrepresentation has now been refuted by my reference to the original question. My next question to the Minister is: if a private company licensed by the Minister mishandles the disposal of waste in such a way as to cause environmental damage, will that company be subject to the rigours of law and will a citizen of this Republic be able to take action through the courts in relation to——

The Deputy put that question rather eloquently previously.

And it was not answered.

I have no control over that, Deputy.

Could you allow me to add to the supplementary?

I have allowed the Deputy, and I have allowed him to repeat himself over and over again but I will tolerate no more of it.

That is not fair. I have asked the same supplementary twice, not over and over again. In response to the first question the Minister imputed that my question was——

This is getting into argument and getting us nowhere.

I do not wish to argue.

If the Minister wishes to make a formal reply——

I do, and I regret that the Deputy has been so very cross in the Chamber today because there is no need for it. He knows full well there is sufficient law on the Statute Book to deal with the matter raised by him. The question about the disposal of toxic waste and that about transport of the waste are related, and that is what we are talking about in the first instance. If a disposal has to take place transportation of the very waste the Deputy referred to is often involved, but there is sufficient law in place at this time to deal with the anxiety he expressed in his second supplementary.

That is not true.