Vol. 351 No. 9
asked the Minister for the Environment if his Department sought the advice of the Department of Fisheries prior to the sanctioning of the discharge of the untreated sewage effluent into inner Galway Bay waters at South Park as proposed in Galway main drainage scheme approved in 1983; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
4.
asked the Minister for the Environment if he is aware of the danger to the health of persons who consume oysters from beds located in waters where untreated sewage is discharged; if he will cause the Galway main drainage scheme to be redesigned to ensure full treatment prior to discharge; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
5.
asked the Minister for the Environment if he will now agree to the construction of a sewage treatment plant on Mutton Island in the next phase of the Galway main drainage scheme instead of a pump-house at South Park; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 together.
The Galway main drainage system is designed to take sewage from Galway city via a new pumping station at South Park to a deep sea outfall off Mutton Island. At present the sewage is discharged without treatment at Claddagh Quay and South Park. The first stage of the scheme has been completed at a cost of approximately £1 million and the Galway Corporation's plans for the next section of the scheme consisting of a pumping station and preliminary treatment works at South Park were approved by my Department in June 1983. The corporation's proposals for the acceptance of tenders were approved in July 1983 (tenders for plant) and in November 1983 (tenders for buildings).
I understand that the South Park pumping station is specially provided for in the Galway city development plan and that in the planning of the pumping station full consideration was given to any possible effects on the existing environment from the physical planning point of view including visual impact and possible noise and odours. Galway Corporation secured the assistance of the IIRS in this connection.
The treatment works proposed to be provided at South Park would be enclosed in a pump-house and would not create any aerosols. I am advised that it would not be a danger to health.
As regards the proposed outfall to deep water from Mutton Island, Galway Corporation commissioned a special report from An Foras Forbartha and in the light of this report the view taken by the technical advisers of the local authority and of my Department was that further treatment was not necessary at present given existing population levels. It was envisaged, however, that the need for further treatment might arise as the scheme would reach its full design capacity. I understand that in accordance with normal practice where sea outfalls are involved, the then Department of Transport did consult the Department of Fisheries before granting the foreshore licence.
I made it known to the corporation some time ago that, in order to give them the time needed to look further into aspects of the scheme locally, I would ensure that the capital allocation arising from the £1.4 million loan, which had been sanctioned for the scheme, would not be withdrawn. I understand that the Galway Corporation considers the matter at their meetings on 30 April and 11 June and that further consideration will be given to it by the corporation at a further meeting. While I did take the opportunity some months ago to visit the site of the proposed pumping station to get a better appreciation of what is involved, it would be inappropriate for me to offer any comment on the scheme which is still under consideration by the local authority.
Is the Minister aware that the proposed sewerage scheme is designed to discharge untreated effluent into an area where a shellfish control order has already been made by the Western Health Board? Is the Minister also aware that scientific discoveries in recent years show that viruses cannot be eliminated from oysters if they become affected, and it is very likely that oysters would be affected, due to the sewage discharge into an area in close proximity to oyster beds? The Minister said the Department of Fisheries were consulted but he did not say what advice he received——
You must ask a question, Deputy.
Would the Minister inform the House whether the Department of Fisheries have been consulted by his Department within the last 12 months in regard to the discharge of this sewage and, if so, whether they have stated they approve of the discharge?
As I said, as a result of representations made to me from local representations and others, I allowed Galway Corporation to reconsider the matter and not to hold them to any time scale. Meetings are taking place between Galway Corporation and experts and, until Galway Corporation report back to me, I am not in a position to comment on what discussions are going on since I am not aware of them. I could only make a decision on the basis of the opportunity I have given to Galway Corporation to come back and make representations to me on the overall effectiveness of the scheme for the Galway Bay area.
Can I take it from the Minister's reply that he is prepared to keep an open mind about the suggested changes in the design and provision of treatment under this scheme or is he adhering to previous parliamentary replies when he said that the treatment would not be provided and that the scheme would not be redesigned? Is he changing his position?
I am not changing anything. As a result of representations made by concerned local representatives in the area that this scheme should be looked at again, I decided to allow the corporation to continue to examine the problem. I understand they are discussing it with experts in the area. At the same time, I gave them an assurance that the money provided by the Department would be available when they came to a decision on the matter. When these further discussions are completed and we know what Galway Corporation request of us only then can we take any decision on the matter. I have gone as far as I can in the matter with Galway Corporation. I am not bludgeoning them into doing anything in particular; I want to ascertain from them what further considerations there are, and then a decision can certainly be taken on the matter.
Would the Minister answer the question I put to him: when did his Department last seek advice from the Department of Fisheries? The Minister has not given a specific answer to Question No. 3 — prior to the sanctioning of this scheme which, he says was sanctioned last November——
Yes.
——had the Minister's Department consulted the Department of Fisheries and, if so, on what date? Is the Minister talking about eight or nine years ago or within the last 12 months?
An Foras Forbartha, an agency within my Department, sought the advice of the Department of Fisheries while carrying out the outfall study on behalf of Galway Corporation. Galway Corporation have also obtained a foreshore licence for the construction of the marine outfall scheme off Mutton Island from the then Minister for Transport. That is the level of discussion in which my Department have been involved.
But when?
I have no date for that. I can only assume it was within the currency of the discussions on the outfall decision.
I am sure the Minister will agree that it is most unsatisfactory that he has not briefed himself fully on the situation in regard to this very important scheme. Is the Minister aware that the information given to me is that it was eight or nine years ago that his Department, An Foras Forbartha and the present Department of Communications consulted the Department of Fisheries. Is the Minister aware that the technical opinion within the Department of Fisheries has changed in the intervening period, that they are now very concerned at the effect of chloroform and viruses on shellfish. They have informed me that shellfish take in nutrients——
That is not a question, Deputy.
Is the Minister aware that I have been informed by the Department of Fisheries that shellfish take nutrients out of sewage and that bacteria and viruses in shellfish can increase by as much as 100 per cent over those in surrounding waters, that they consider that this level of concentration can cause illness to people who eat shellfish?
I have given the Deputy considerable latitude but I cannot allow speeches.
In all of this I consider I have been most reasonable in allowing Galway Corporation to have another look at the situation. As I have said already, when they came back to me with their opinion — whether it be the same or whether they have fresh throughts on the matter — we will then consider the matter. In the meantime I have maintained the £1.4 million which is being made available by my Department for this.
In view of what the Minister has said, if there is a possibility that any consultation that has taken place with the Department of Fisheries was some number of years ago would he consider in the intervening period — while awaiting the reply of Galway Corporation — having discussions with the Department of Fisheries in regard to the inherent dangers to the shellfish industry in Galway Bay?
As soon as Galway Corporation let us have their decision on this issue we will see whether they themselves have considered the difficulties involved for the shellfish industry. If not, then certainly we will get advice on that aspect of the problem.
Question No. 7.
It is of very great importance.
We cannot spend all day on it.
This House is about to go into recess and some of us fear that such decisions may be taken while the House is in recess. Therefore it is important that we avail of this opportunity to bring the message home loud and clear——
I will allow a supplementary but I am not going to allow a whole debate.
Having visited the site, as the Minister did himself, would he agree that the proposed building would not be obtrusive on the landscape? Is he of that opinion himself having stood on the site and seen where it is proposed to build this huge pumping station?
I think the Deputy is trying to trap me into something I am not going to be trapped into today on this issue. I am not a technical expert on the building of treatment works and so on. I have to take the opinion of local experts and experts in my Department on this matter, who say that it will not be obtrusive. But it is one of the concerns of the local people. That is one reason I was prepared to allow Galway Corporation to take another look at the whole situation. Certainly I am not going to set myself up as an expert on the building of treatment plants or anything else. As requested, I went to Galway, talked to people locally and took a decision that Galway Corporation could take another look at the overall situation.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I have given the Deputy a lot of latitude and I cannot allow him any more.
Surely the Minister will accept that, as Minister for the Environment, he is charged with responsibility for the general environment, that all of the planning legislation is implemented under the aegis of his Department, with any of the instructions to An Bord Pleanála or to local planning authorities emanating from him as Minister for the Environment? Surely then he must be in a position to give an opinion on whether this proposed building is or is not obtrusive on the landscape at the location proposed, in South Park, Claddagh, Galway, having stood there and seen it himself? Surely he must agree that it is?
The Deputy seems to be giving the House the impression that this building is there already. It is not there and I could have no conception of what that building would look like by merely standing there——
The Minister has approved the construction of that building.
But I can tell the Deputy that this was the very reason I approached this problem in what I consider to be a constructive manner on behalf of the people of Galway, by allowing them a further input and another look at the decision taken locally. Indeed many local representatives have made representations to my Department to have this project continued rather than held in abeyance. Because that was done by local representatives I thought it better to take the points made by Deputy Molloy and others in the House, and Senators also, allowing a second look to be taken at the situation overall. I consider I am being more than fair in this whole area.
I have just one final question.
No, Deputy I have allowed three. The Deputy is not being fair with the Chair. The Chair has given him great latitude.
The Minister has taken a whole lot of questions together.
Three questions together.
And he has answered the others I had postponed so I know what will happen: I will be declared out of order when I put them next week. Might I ask the Minister this one final question: is he aware that the county manager and officials of Galway Corporation are putting pressure on members of Galway Corporation to approve of the scheme as it has been approved by him already, that in applying that pressure they are telling the members of Galway Corporation that if they do not approve of the scheme as already designed, they themselves may be surcharged, that the costs will involve charges on each household in Galway city——
The Minister has taken three questions together but that seems to be a question on the administration of Galway Corporation.
——and that they should not be responsible for such additional charges. Would the Minister say whether it is the environmental and aesthetic aspects of this and the quality of the water in inner Galway Bay which are of concern, or is it merely the money? We would like some enlightenment for the European Parliament on this issue because the officials in Galway Corporation are trying to force it through on the councillors, trying to frighten them into approving something——
The Deputy is abusing Question Time.
All I can say in reply to that is that I am not aware of pressures and so on being exerted by members of the staff of Galway Corporation. It would be unfair of me to accept it because I am not aware of it.
The Minister is not aware of the threat of a surcharge? The Minister does not keep himself very well informed.
Question No. 7.
Question No. 6 postponed.
