asked the Minister for Labour if the committee which was referred to by the Minister for Agriculture in the course of his reply to Parliamentary Question No. 8 of 9 June 1983 and which had been established to consider questions of factory safety and the environment in relation to the factory plant at Ballydine, County Tipperary, has yet reported to the Government; what its findings or recommendations were; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Tipperary Factory Report.
14.
The committee to which the Deputy refers furnished their report to the Government on 7 July 1983. Their findings and recommendations are confidential and, accordingly, it would not be appropriate for me to divulge them. Arising from replies given by the Minister for Health and by the Minister for Agriculture to Parliamentary Questions No. 3 of 1 December 1983 and No. 8 of 29 February 1984 respectively, the Deputy will be aware of certain further investigations which have been and are being carried out. In addition, a report prepared by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards for Tipperary (South Riding) County Council on the efficiency of the solvent incinerator at the factory plant has been completed and is being examined by the local authority. The report, together with the local authority's observations on it, are expected in the Department of the Environment shortly.
When this matter was raised with the Minister for Agriculture, he told us we would have a reply within three or four weeks. What is the reason for the delay? Are South Tipperary County Council monitoring the situation at present?
As the Deputy is aware, a number of Government Departments are involved. The Minister for Agriculture indicated that the tests being carried out by his Department were about 97 per cent complete. The position now is that all but two tests are available but specific work is being carried out by the Department of Health and by the local health board. The work of the local authority was delayed because there was no adequate substance available to allow for an analysis. That has now been overcome and the work has been completed. We await their comments on what has been discovered.
Three years is a long time and I would not like to see any further delay in the matter. If there is a danger to people in the farming community and to those working in the factory——
A question, please, Deputy.
How soon can the Minister give a guarantee as to when we will get a positive reply so that this matter will be cleared up in the interests of all concerned?
As far as the Government committee are concerned, the area which is likely to remain outstanding longest is the work of the Department of Health who are engaged on an epidemiological study on human health patterns in the Ballydine district. That involves an analysis of the complaints of patients visiting their doctors in that area contrasted with a control area. The information available is that 300 consultations in each areas are required in order for the survey to be statistically significant. It will be some time before that is available but all the other work is either complete or almost complete. What I or any other Member of the House can say is constrained to a degree because there is a court case pending in this matter and no actions by the Government or the committee reporting to the Government can interfere with the progress of the court case.
I regret I missed the early part of the Minister's reply. I presume the Minister for Labour is chairing the committee referred to? Could we have information in regard to the findings of the Government committee which were available before the tests we are now discussing were done? I know the Government committee consisted of four or five different Departments and I should like to know their recommendations.
The committee referred to consisted of the Minister for Labour, The Minister for Health, the Minister for Industry and Energy, the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for the Environment. That committee presented their interim report to the Government on 7 July. As I indicated in my earlier reply, the findings of that committee are confidential but the Deputy will be aware, as this is not the first time this has been debated in the House, that a number of tests are ongoing. I have reported to the House on where the tests stand today.
I am aware of that and I have put down a number of questions regarding this matter. The Minister says that this report is confidential, presumably to the Members of this House as well as everybody else. Is the Minister not further contributing to the difficulties pointed out by other Deputies by referring to secret reports? Could the Minister ask the Government if these details can be made available to the Deputies concerned?
When the Minister for Agriculture answered a similar question he informed the House that the results of the tests then available gave no indication of any exceptional animal health problems in the animals from which the specimens were taken. The findings are not unusual and do not in themselves conform to any specific disease pattern which might be indicative of any unusual animal health problem on the farm in question. There is a case pending in the High Court in which the plaintiff is the farm owner in question and the defendant is the factory in question. The issues which will arise at that court hearing obviously relate to matters which were considered by the Government Department and, in those circumstances, it would be quite improper for me to say anything.
Notwithstanding that there is a case pending in the High Court, could the Minister give an assurance that there will be no undue delay by the committee in arriving at their conclusions?
From the outset the Government have regarded this as a matter of urgency and have approached it on that basis. There were many tests to be carried out, some in this country, some in the United Kingdom and some in Sweden. They are all nearly completed. The remaining matter outstanding is the health survey to which I referred and that will be analysed and completed as soon as possible. However, I have indicated there are statistical constraints. There is no point in undertaking such an exercise if the results are not statistically valid.
Arising from the Minister's reply——
I will allow this question and then I shall allow a question from Deputy Mac Giolla. After that we must pass to the next question.
I know that the Minister is awaiting the report and further details of the study by the Department of Health which will be of considerable importance. In his reply the Minister said that the results gave no indication of any specific disease. If that is so the question must be asked, why did approximately 20 cattle die? Is anyone in a position to say what caused the deaths if there was no specific disease?
It was because of the public unease that has been in a sense ventilated by Deputy Enright that the Government embarked on this task. The Department of Agriculture, co-operating with Mr. Hanrahan, slaughtered and had samples taken of a number of animals, some cattle and some pigs. Some were the property of Mr. Hanrahan and others were the property of neighbours. The total was seven cattle and one pig. They were subjected to the most exhaustive examination in the State Laboratory here, in the laboratory of the Government Chemist in London and in the Department of Clinical Chemistry in the College of Veterinary Medicine in Uppsala in Sweden. The net result of all those tests was there were no unusual findings to report. What was found does not, in itself, conform to any specific disease pattern.
Will the Minister of State say if there was full co-operation from the landowners concerned?
In the past Mr. Hanrahan, perhaps conscious that he was prosecuting an action at law, was reluctant to provide information to the Departments. That changed in September last year when animals were made available for slaughtering and subsequent testing.
What changed? I do not understand the Minister's reply.
Mr. Hanrahan changed his attitude and made available his animals for slaughtering and for investigation.
Does the Minister not agree that this matter of confidentiality and secrecy, or at least not disclosing the facts, leads to further speculation? Will the Government consider making available to concerned Deputies the findings of the committee? I am not referring to court cases or further testings but only to the findings of the committee who reported to the Government.
The Minister for Agriculture indicated the findings in summary, that the results then available gave no indications of any exceptional animal health problem. I have repeated that today. To go beyond that would be to answer the specific question that will have to be addressed by the judge of the High Court who hears the case. The issue that judge will have to consider is whether there were, as alleged, deaths and health problems in the area in question and whether, as alleged, those problems were attributable to the actions of this factory. It would be quite improper for me to give my views or the views of anyone else.
Will the Minister say——
I am sorry. The Deputy may not ask a further question on this matter. I am calling on the Minister to answer Question No. 15.
I bow to the wishes of the Chair.