Vol. 475 No. 4
12 Miss Quill asked the Minister for the Environment his views regarding the deterioration in the quality of drinking water and the contamination of water in certain parts of the country as confirmed by the Environmental Protection Agency report 1991-94, and other reports; and the action, if any, he proposes to take to tackle this. [5170/97]
The recent report of the Environmental Protection Agency on drinking water quality in 1995 indicates that overall quality continues to be satisfactory, especially in the public supplies. Apart from coliforms, compliance levels in respect of strictly health related parameters were close to or above 99 per cent in 1995. In the case of coliforms, the overall compliance level, 87.5 per cent, was marginally higher than the last report of 1994. There is no room, however, for complacency about the limited exceedances of drinking water quality parameters identified in the report and I will be asking local authorities to ensure that intensive follow-up measures are taken where exceedances occur.
My Department wrote to sanitary authorities in September 1996 reiterating earlier advice that they should carry out risk assessments of water supply sources, with highest priority to be given to groundwater supplies in close proximity to potentially polluting sources. I have asked sanitary authorities to review their action plans for the protection of water supplies in the light of the findings of these risk assessments. In addition, my Department will continue to support the development of the integrated training programme for personnel involved in the treatment and supply of drinking water which is being promoted by the Sanitary Services National Training Group. The quality of drinking water provided by private group schemes raises more serious concerns, and I propose to deal with those in reply to a later question.
The Environmental Protection Agency Report on Water Quality in Ireland (1991-1994), published in September 1996, covers 13,200 kilometers of river channel and a representative sample of 135 lakes. The report shows that 71 per cent of river channel and 77 per cent of lakes surveyed were unpolluted. While the bulk of our rivers and lakes continue to show good quality and are suitable for the requirements of the most sensitive uses such as abstraction for drinking, salmonid fisheries and bathing, both long-term and recent trend analyses in the report indicate two particular developments: first, a further significant reduction in the extent of serious pollution and a slowing down in the rate of increase of moderate pollution and, second, a continuing reduction in unpolluted channel and a distinct trend of increasing levels of slight pollution, mainly through eutrophication.
The gradual abatement of serious pollution may be attributed to the installation of new or improved waste treatment facilities for point source discharges, particularly from sewage, and in some instances to the cessation of seriously polluting industries. The main threat to water quality continues to be eutrophication which is largely due to nutrients from agricultural sources and, to a lesser extent, point source discharges from sewage and industry.
A range of actions is being pursued for the improved management and/or reduction of nutrient losses to waters, particularly phosphorus, with a view to tackling the problem of eutrophication. These actions include the promotion of the Code of Good Agricultural Practice to Protect Waters from Pollution which I launched jointly with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry in July 1996; an amendment, in the Waste Management Act, 1996, of the Water Pollution (Amendment) Act, 1990 — the Deputy will be familiar with this as she took part in the Committee Stage debate — allowing local authorities to require farmers to prepare nutrient management plans to achieve the correct balance between water quality protection and nutrient requirements for crop production; the launch last December of revised Teagasc recommended application rates for phosphorus fertilisers for grassland; the extension, since September last, of the integrated pollution control licensing system under the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992 to new intensive agricultural activities in the pig and poultry sectors; the imposition by local authorities and the Environmental Protection Agency of controls, as appropriate, in respect of phosphorus discharges from industrial activities; the commissioning by the Environmental Protection Agency of relevant studies as part of the ongoing research and monitoring programme for water quality generally — the findings of these will be of benefit to local authorities and the agency in the performance of their water pollution control and management functions; the ongoing implementation by my Department, in conjunction with local authorities, of the major programme of capital investment in water protection which will exceed £1.3 billion by 2005; the REPS operated by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry; and, under Partnership 2000, provision will be made by way of improved capital allowances for a targeted and monitored measure to support investment by farmers in necessary pollution control projects.
To provide better co-ordination for the above actions, and to intensify efforts at protecting vulnerable water quality, my Department is finalising a catchment management strategy. This will aim to encourage an integrated approach to catchment management based on the co-operation of all economic and other interests.
Has the Minister forgotten that for ten days last summer the public water supply in the village of Roundstone was put out of commission because of contamination and that the public water supply in Nenagh was also out of commission for more than six weeks last summer because of industrial pollution? Does the Minister realise that a recent report confirms there is serious contamination of tap water in a number of group water schemes? In the light of that and further evidence, does the Minister consider it more important to take action to upgrade water quality and eliminate contamination of drinking water than to abolish water charges?
I will specifically answer the three points made by the Deputy. In relation to Roundstone, I provided money this year for a first rate water supply which will be in place this year. In relation to Nenagh, the Deputy will welcome the coming onstream this month of a major water scheme; I travelled to Tipperary within a few days of its coming into operation. I accelerated that project in recognition of the terrible hardship suffered by Nenagh last year, and approximately £5 million was expended. Nenagh now has a first rate water supply. In regard to the third point, the Deputy will be aware I provided £5 million in addition to the normal allocations to upgrade such schemes with particular emphasis on the degree of coliform contamination of such private water supplies. I have taken effective and speedy action on each of the points raised by the Deputy.
Is the Minister not embarrassed that contamination had to occur before he took corrective action? It reminds me of the hepatitis C scandal where no corrective action was taken in relation to contamination of blood. In his recent discussion with the members of the federation of group water schemes——
That is a separate question.
——did the Minister make any commitments to tackle contamination in a number of named group water schemes and, if so, what was the nature of that commitment?
This appears to be an extension of the question.
There is a specific question tabled on that matter which will be reached and I do not want to pre-empt it. The Deputy should be embarrassed. She instanced three sources of pollution and she should have the good grace to acknowledge that I acted on and resolved those problems.
The Minister closed the door when the horse had bolted.
The problems of pollution and difficulties with water supplies did not begin when I became Minister, but I am dealing with those issues. I announced last week the most comprehensive package of measures in relation to expenditure on small schemes in the history of the State. Approximately £150 million will be spent on tackling many of the projects that had been promised but put on the long finger. We have a problem with drinking water in this country and we must address it, but it will not be addressed by knee-jerk reactions or the promise of blank cheques to the first group that comes along, an exercise in which the Deputy's party appears to be engaging. People will appreciate a thought out, comprehensive response that deals with the issue in a structured and positive way.
It is a pity that thinking did not begin last December.
The representative groups with which I have had discussions appreciate the comprehensive approach I am taking to this matter.
The Minister has conceded that there is a problem in relation to water quality and that it will worsen. He also conceded that he is not prepared to take corrective action to avert contamination of our water supplies.
That is totally untrue.
Is it the Minister's perception that there are more votes in abolishing water charges than in trying to improve the quality of drinking water? Is he concerned that the time may come when there will be signs over taps in hotel bedrooms and restaurants indicating that the water is unfit for drinking? I do not want that to happen.
I have no fear of that day ever arriving——
No, because there will be a change of Government.
——unless the finances of the State fall into the hands of the Progressive Democrats.
We would use the money wisely.
The Deputy has a brass neck to talk about canvassing for votes when her party spokesman, in a blatant act of electioneering and irresponsibility, signed a blank cheque of promises to a group last week.
To restore equality.
The Deputy has had a lot of latitude on this question. She has put the question and we have heard the answer.
Is the Minister telling me we cannot have equality among customers?
The Deputy has had her opportunity and will not be called again. She should resume her seat, she is being grossly disorderly.
Is the Minister asking me——
I would not like to be forced into taking further action against the Deputy. She should resume her seat.
We have not witnessed such an outburst from Deputy Quill before——
I am defending the truth.
If the Deputy does not restrain herself, I will ask her to leave the House.
I am defending the truth.
The Deputy will restrain herself or leave the House. I will have an orderly debate at Question Time.
I stand for equality.
I ask Deputy Quill to leave the House.
I will not.
We have witnessed histrionics from the Deputy in an attempt to——
To deal with the truth.
——hide the embarrassment of her party at facing both ways at once, decrying the Government about over-expenditure and jumping on the first bandwagon that marched past its door. Even she is embarrassed. All the bluster and blather in the world will not mask the embarrassment of her party over the blatant electioneering of its spokesperson on this matter.
Is there one law for consumers and another for——
I will deal with the specifics of the question.
The Minister is a disgrace.
The question referred to a concern about water quality. I have allocated £150 million to programmes announced this week to improve water quality. The Progressive Democrats would not allocate any money for that purpose. As its party leader has stated clearly, it is not in the business of helping those who cannot help themselves, it is only in the business of helping those who can help themselves.
The Minister should answer the question on the Order Paper.
God help anybody who needs State support from the Progressive Democrats to provide basic water, sewerage or other infrastructures. This Government's record in improving water supplies will stand the test of time.
As the time for dealing with Priority Questions is exhausted, the last two questions will be taken in the time for Other Questions.
