Vol. 457 No. 7
6 Mr. Dempsey asked the Minister for the Environment the reason the provisions of the Environmental Protection Agency Act were not fully used in the case of the investigations into alleged pollution in Askeaton, County Limerick. [16276/95]
The Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, is co-ordinating a major programme of investigations into the animal health problems on farms in the Askeaton area. There are four elements to the investigations: a veterinary-animal health study by the veterinary research laboratory of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry; an analysis of soils and plants by Teagasc: an assessment of industrial processes and emissions by the Environmental Protection Agency; and a human health study by the Mid-Western Health Board.
As far as its work is concerned, it is a matter for the Environmental Protection Agency to apply, as appropriate, the powers available to it under the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992; I am not aware of any difficulty in this regard.
Environmental Protection Agency work to date has focused on establishing accurate and representative information on the possible contribution of atmospheric pollution to the Askeaton situation. For this purpose, SO 2 monitors have been installed on both farms and are operating continuously. Sampling and weekly analysis of local rainfall is being carried out to determine the deposition rate for various substances including sulphur, fluoride, aluminium and other metals which may be attributable to emissions. Measurement of organic compounds in the air is also ongoing.
In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency has since April 1995 been undertaking inspections of all major industrial activities in the area and has commenced a related programme of emission measurements. Advice has been obtained from experts in toxicology at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in the UK and the Environmental Protection Agency in the USA regarding the overall programme of investigations and this advice provides validation for the work which is now continuing.
The agency has already published, and widely circulated at local level, an information booklet on the background to the investigations. I understand that it intends shortly to publish a first interim report on the programmes of investigations.
My colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, has recently issued a statement which fully explains the reasons for the decision by the State to take over the two farms which are the subject of the investigations. In brief, he has explained that existing legislation does not provide a basis for the conduct of the required scientific and credible veterinary investigation in the circumstancess obtaining in the Askeaton area. A practical approach has, therefore, been taken to securing the farms and cattle for participation in this much needed investigation. It will be in the interests of all concerned that this investigation proceeds on a sound scientific basis and without further delay.
I thank the Minister for giving the House a little more information than what was given by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, and I join with him in commending the Environmental Protection Agency on the tests it has been conducting in the Askeaton area. The question which remains to be answered, however, is why the Government has lashed out almost £1 million taxpayer's money in taking over these farms when section 96 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act and the Protection of Animals Act, 1984 specifically allow authorised personnel to gain entry to farms to carry our inspections.
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and I would have a different question to answere if we said that the State would not incur this expense. We are determined to expend whatever sum is required to discover the causes of the problems on the two farms concerned. It is in the national interest that we do so expeditiously and effectively.
The Environmental Protection Agency Act and the Air Pollution Act contain provisions under which authorised persons may enter premises to undertake limited and prescribed actions. That is the advice we have received from the Attorney General. Neither Act nor any other legislation that I am aware of grants the powers required in these circumstances.
The Deputy will agree that the compulsory take-over of the farms by the State, the compulsory removal of some cattle, the compulsory restocking of the farms in a prescribed manner and the prescriptive management of the farms and stocks is required to ensure the integrity of the veterinary investigation. It would be unjustifiable for the State to take over the farms in the way required without the payment of proper compensation to the individuals concerned. My colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry has taken the correct course of action to ensure the four studies I have mentioned are conducted speedily to discover the causes of the problems.
I do not accept what the Minister has said. Section 8 (1) (e) of the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes Act, 1984, states clearly that an authorised person may enter——
I dissuade the Deputy from quoting and remind him that he ought not tax the Minister for the Environment with matters which are clearly the responsibility of another Minister.
I accept your ruling, but there is collective responsibility——
The Minister before us today is the Minister for the Environment.
As a member of the Government, the Minister participated in the decision to spend unnecessarily £1 million of taxpayers money. He, therefore, bears some responsibility. The section I have mentioned clearly states that an inspector may enter premises to carry out inspections and conduct tests,-analysis and so on. The Environmental Protection Agency Act contains similar powers.
I have outlined clearly the powers available to the Environmental Protection Agency under the appropriate Act. It does not provide a basis for the conduct of the investigation required in this instance. It is not a question of monitoring, but of removing animals to allow tests to be conducted, controlling the times of feeds and managing the farms. We considered taking special powers by way of the introduction of special legislation, but in all the circumstances it was thought more appropriate, to be fair to the families concerned, to take the route followed. This is in the interests of the environment and the agriculture sector. I would be surprised if anyone did not wholehearthly approve of it.
The time available for dealing with Priority Questions is exhausted, but I can deal with Question No. 7 in ordinary time. I will hear a final question from Deputy Dempsey.
Does the Minister not accept that I am querying not the fact that these tests must be done — I accept that — but the manner in which the Government did them, which was an unnecessary waste of taxpayers' money? I do not want him to put words in my mouth.
That is a statement rather than a question.
I fundamentally disagree with the Deputy. I do not think the effective commandeering of a person's farm would be an acceptable way of getting the result both the Deputy and I require.
There is no point putting things into law if they will not be implemented.
If we had taken over the farm without proper compensation and without purchasing it, the Deputy would have said something else.
Is it compensation?
