Lough Funshinagh in County Roscommon is a turlough. By its nature a turlough has channels underneath where the water goes out. Unfortunately in recent years it has not been functioning as normal. It was designated by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Unfortunately, some of the families in the area had to leave because the water level has kept rising. A solution had been found by Roscommon County Council in partnership with the Office of Public Works, OPW, under emergency powers. There are 1949 emergency powers to allow local authorities to act where people's lives or properties are in danger. The council in Roscommon used these powers. Unfortunately, Friends of the Irish Environment, FIE, which is funded by the Government, decided to take a case against it and stop the works. The High Court judgment came last week. The judge very clearly stated the 1949 emergency powers are redundant.

There has been no comment from the Taoiseach or the Government over the past week. The Taoiseach might not be worried about ten families in County Roscommon but I am because they are my constituents. He might worry about flooding out the road in Portrane or in his constituency in Cork. I know about jobs throughout the country, in Doonbeg in Clare, in Galway and in several other parts of the country, where houses are at risk or will fall into the sea, and because these emergency powers have been struck down in the courts - I would question why - these people have been left redundant, so to speak. Because of these powers being struck down, a county manager has no emergency power and the OPW has been left redundant.

In Roscommon, money was spent on a pipe as the sensible option to take the overflow from the lake. What is very worrying is that it has come to my attention, and unfortunately the council did not even tell me but I found out in Dublin, that over the past six to eight months someone in the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications got onto the Chief State Solicitor's Office. Be that a Minister or a Secretary General, the person got on to the Chief State Solicitor's and the Attorney General. From what I understand, the State joined the FIE against the council. The Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications or the Chief State Solicitor's Office was going to join with an unelected group against the council in a case in County Roscommon.

Is the Taoiseach aware that in the wake of this judgment, water on the road cannot be let into a ditch unless screening is done? Will the Taoiseach find out whether it was Minister or who it was who made the call to the Chief State Solicitor's Office and the Attorney General to get involved in this? Will he hold an inquiry into it? County Roscommon might not matter to the Taoiseach but I predict it will happen in Cork. Will the Taoiseach get the Government to look at this? If it had happened in Dublin or Cork, there would have been a meeting of the Government last week, but because it happened in a rural area, there was not a word about it. Will the Taoiseach give undertakings to do this?

The Deputy has an obligation to be a bit more precise in his assertions. He is asking me to respond to a general assertion he has made. The Deputy used a phrase such as "I am given to understand". Who gave the Deputy to understand it?

Do you want me to say who my sources are?

Yes. What are the sources?

They work in the Civil Service.

Did they join?

They are in the Civil Service. Answer the questions I asked.

I would if I could understand the question. I will come back to the basic point but I want to put this to the Deputy. Do not come to me and tell me to go off and become an investigator to find out about something you are given to understand. If you have it, tell me. That is all I am saying. The Deputy can come and tell me privately who said it to him but I need to know. That would short-circuit-----

I will tell the Taoiseach privately.

That would short-circuit the answer to his question.

We will short-circuit it.

Objections to flooding schemes have happened in Cork. They have happened throughout the country. They have delayed flooding schemes throughout the country. We live in a country where people have the right, whether we like it or not, to object. I do not approve of all of the objections. I support the Deputy's basic point on people in homes or businesses. Premises have been flooded on the main street of Bandon two or three times. We can name other towns throughout the country. How we approach these issues needs to be balanced. A fundamental priority has to be to protect people in their homes. We do care because it is in Roscommon.

You do not seem to.

I would certainly care about ten homes in Roscommon. I would care about ten homes in any part of the country. The issue now is how we resolve it. We cannot interfere in the courts. The courts will make their decisions. Normally what happens with judgments of this kind is the Attorney General makes an assessment and advises the Government on amending legislation or gives us a range of initiatives we could take legally or through legislation in the House to meet the issues that have arisen in the case. I have not seen the judgment and I am not at liberty to discuss it.

I would imagine if there were consequences, you would have heard about it.

I will get a full assessment of this legally in terms of the court decision. I do not believe we fund the organisation the Deputy has suggested we fund.

The State does.

In what way?

The environmental pillar is funded by the State.

That is very general. I am speaking about the specific organisation. The Deputy can "hmm" all he likes but we need to find out. The Deputy has made the assertion and I take it he has done research and knows the specific organisation is funded. The point is that the organisation is independent and separate from the Government. It made its objections and went to the courts. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Donovan, could give the Deputy chapter and verse about flooding schemes throughout the country that have been held back.

The Government is also frustrated. We want schemes delivered because we have a lot more flooding than we had before because of the change in the climate and so on.

I will be very clear with the Taoiseach. This is not a delay. This High Court decision has taken away the powers the State gave to every council in the country in 1949. Is that clear enough for the Taoiseach? What is he going to do about that?

I will be clear on the second assertion I made. The Taoiseach is closer to the Attorney General than I am. I do not get to talk to him or to the Chief State Solicitor's office. I asserted that they had joined, or had threatened to join, with an environmental pillar in a case. It is much easier for the Taoiseach to talk to those people than it is for me. Will the Taoiseach find out whether this is true? This was a case taken against a council at a time when that council was taking the lead and undertaking a pilot project to try to resolve an issue when people, including elderly people, were in danger of losing their houses. One of them has actually lost their house. In fairness to the OPW, it had put in diggers to do the work at that time. One arm of the State here in Dublin was threatening to join with an environmental pillar while the council, another arm of the State, and the OPW were trying to do the job. How can you get work done when the State is functioning in that way? Will the Taoiseach look into that? Will he also bring to the Cabinet a proposal to resolve this situation? This is not only about stuff on my back door. It will also happen in five or six other parts of the country within the next two years.

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. I will get an answer for him. I will seek answers to the questions he has raised or the assertions he has made. That judgment will be fully assessed because Government has to act within the legal framework. The separation of powers applies but we will examine this High Court judgment and determine the steps that need to be taken now to resolve the situation. The broader point is that, as a State and through the OPW and the councils, we want to protect communities from flooding. That is our basic point.

The Government cannot do so at the moment.

We 100% agree with the Deputy on that. We have schemes and have announced additional funding to put flooding schemes in place all over the country. There have been objections to flooding schemes on environmental and other grounds. In my view, there comes a point in all of these processes when common sense should prevail and balance and perspective should be applied. Above all, protecting people in their homes should be the priority and protecting their capacity to earn a livelihood should matter. I genuinely believe that with climate change, the flooding issue is going to get much worse. That is the real challenge. We need very significant interventions over the next while to deal with this issue.

When is the Cabinet going to meet on this issue?

We cannot have chitchat about the matter now.

I will come back to the Deputy.