I am conscious of the fact that, after the events of the last couple of days, on the national scene, this matter may seem to be something of an anticlimax but, for the people of Nass, affected by it, it is very much one of current and ongoing concern.
I had the opportunity to raise other aspects of the matter here on 16 October last. Of course, since then we have seen the full effects. I should like to tell the Minister of State just what has been the extent of the problem. A committee of concerned residents carried out a survey of the area of Naas affected by this contamination of the water supply. It was discovered that out of 3,242 people surveyed, 2,702 were affected, that is 83 per cent of them; in fact 88 per cent of the children surveyed were found to have been affected. The symptoms varied from mild to very severe: some 17 per cent of the people affected had mild symptoms, 34 per cent moderate symptoms and 48 per cent very severe symptoms. The effects on children were even worse with some 52 per cent of them being severely affected. Twenty-six people were hospitalised. Symptoms from an incident which appears to have taken place in the last week of September continue to manifest themselves. The House will see clearly that it has been a very worrying occurrence.
On 16 October last I sought to find out what measures were in place to deal with an incident like this. The then Minister for the Environment outlined to me what were the steps included in the emergency plan. In all conscience I would have to say that all of those steps have been taken but they appear to me to have been taken too slowly and too late to deal with the problem that manifested itself.
Speaking on the Environmental Protection Agency Bill, 1990, some weeks ago in this House I gave the opinon — and I would like to hear the view of the Minister of State on this — that, when an incident of this type occurs, the public authorities, from the very beginning, should adopt the view that the worst has happened and act accordingly. As I said then, if one over-reacts at the beginning nobody will come to any harm, whereas if one under-reacts at the beginning people will suffer. That has been the case here. That is why I support the call made at a meeting in the town of Naas on Friday evening of last week for a public inquiry into the incident. I do not want a public inquiry to be held simply to apportion blame. I want a public inquiry held to determine whether the guidelines for action that we have in such cases are adequate; whether there is any clear specification of how soon action has to be taken and who is responsible for taking such action.
There were two previous incidents of serious water contamination in other parts of the country in previous years. Happily neither resulted in people being hospitalised. Twenty-six people were hospitalised in Naas. Therefore, it is a matter of very serious concern.
We need a public inquiry held to determine the adequacy of the guidelines, to clearly allocate responsibility for taking action quickly and to decide whether there are any further steps needed in our planning process to prevent what seems to have been the reason for this difficulty, which was the location of a sewer in close proximity to a water supply source which was at the time, I admit, out of use. Nonetheless we need to inquire why and how it happened that a sewer was located so near to a water supply that might be used and, in this case, was brought into use last year to deal with the inadequate water supply to Naas.
Would the Minister of State agree to establish a public inquiry with terms of reference broadly along the lines I have indicated, not, as I have said, to apportion blame but to determine the adequacy and clarity of the guidelines and to clearly allocate responsibility for early action if such an incident should recur?
