Vol. 457 No. 7
15 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for the Environment when he intends to make an order implementing section 105 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act to give the Environmental Protection Agency statutory powers, such as the right to subpoena witnesses, to enter premises and to search for or take possession of documents in order that the agency can finally be enabled to carry out its statutory duties effectively. [14509/95]
I intend to make a commencement order in relation to section 105 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, before the end of the year.
I thought the Minister might have done this before now. I am not sure if I agree with Deputy Dempsey that spending money in the Askeaton case was unnecessary, but much more could have been achieved in the investigation if section 105 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act were enacted. That section empowers persons conducting an inquiry to carry out such an inspection and examination and make such inquiries as appear reasonably necessary. There is wide scope under the provisions of that section. Does the Environmental Protection Agency operate under the provisions of section 13 of the Act in respect of power to enter premises for the purpose of making inquiries which is limited to its role in respect of licensing? I disagree with the Minister in that many more farmers may seek his assistance. Does he agree that it would have been more appropriate if he had enacted section 105 before making a decision on this matter? In that way the Environmental Protection Agency would have been able to carry out a broader investigation. It must now wait until the Minister reaches a decision, perhaps, to buy more farms in the area which would not necessarily benefit all concerned. Will section 105 be enacted before further problems come to light in Askeaton?
I was loath to enact section 105 alone. I wanted to introduce individual sections of the Act in a programmed manner that would fit the ability of the agency which is currently recruiting personnel. As in the case of the Child Care Act, I do not believe in devolving statutory authority to agencies who are not equipped or ready to deal with such power. In general I do not agree it would be appropriate to use the provisions of section 105 in the Askeaton case. What is envisaged under that section is a type of sworn inquiry that would examine major incidents of environmental pollution or matters of major concern relating to environmental protection. We do not know the cause of the problems in Askeaton.
They are environmental.
We do not know. The Deputy is prejudging the matter.
I have been there.
Is the Deputy saying he knows the cause of the problem from a visit there?
We could have saved a great deal of money if the Deputy had spoken earlier.
If we had only known the Deputy was so well informed we could have saved a fortune on toxicologists from the US and the UK.
This proves the point I made earlier.
This is a serious issue. The public has a jaundiced view of inquiries. I prefer an informal inquiry that allows experts to get to grips with the problem from the four perspectives I outlined in reply to the earlier question on this matter. The human health dimension is being dealt with by the local health board, an environmental analysis is being carried out by the Environmental Protection Agency, a vegetative analysis by Teagasc and an animal health analysis by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. Those bodies must be given the necessary resources to get to the bottom of the problem in Askeaton. I am not qualified or in a position to make a judgment on the matter at this stage. I anxiously await the interim report which will be published shortly by the Environmental Protection Agency and ultimately the final conclusions. We do not know what will eventually transpire but the Government is determined to provide the necessary mechanisms and resources to resolve the issue.
Is the Minister saying that section 105 would not have been useful in the Askeaton case if it had been enacted? There is wide scope under the provisions of that section. It does not deal simply with a sworn inquiry. The Act allows more widespread entry than section 13. Does the Minister agree that section 105 would be useful in discovering the more specific causes of the problem? By saying the problem is environmental, I include human health and the wider implications of that word. To that extent I do not believe it can be denied that there is a strong environmental dimension to the problem in Askeaton.
There is a problem, but we do not know the source of it and we are making every effort to find it. I support the action of my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, in acquiring the land to carry out exhaustive analysis, including removing some of the animals for testing and placing them on different land to see how they thrive. That could not be done unless somebody went on to the land to carry out an investigation. We are not taking a snapshot view of the problem but are carrying out a long-term analysis of management, the air, soil, grassland and other aspects. Such analysis will be facilitated by the Government's decision and is a much better way of dealing with the matter than setting up an inquiry as envisaged under section 105 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act. I repeat I intend bringing that section into force before the end of the year, but had it been in force I would not have envisaged its being of use in this instance.
We have strayed from the substance of this question.
In light of the Minister's statement that the Environmental Protection Agency Act is not sufficiently strong in this area, has he any plans to amend that Act to allow people in future cases like the Askeaton case to go onto lands to carry out monitoring? I do not accept the Minister has no power in that regard under the Environmental Protection Agency Act and other Acts, but if he believes the powers are not sufficient has he plans to amend the Act?
That is an extension of the question. Advice available to the Government is that the control required to carry out such an investigation, that is total management of animals and their patterns of feeding, would be so intrusive and prolonged that it could not be encompassed under current legislative powers. It would be an incredible intrusion into the privacy of families who derive their livelihood from the land. In those circumstances it was right and proper that we should allow the investigation to be carried out and allow people to get on with their lives. The correct and wise course of action has been taken in that regard. I do not envisage other circumstances that would require specific legislation or a specific amendment, but that matter will be considered when this investigation is concluded.
