asked the Minister for the Environment the amount of moneys allocated for the removal of slurry from the vicinity of Lough Sheelin in 1983-84; the amount it is intended to allocate in 1985; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
588.
Written Answers. - Lough Sheelin Pollution.
578.
asked the Minister for the Environment if he is aware of the serious pollution of Lough Sheelin in recent years; and if he is satisfied that proper arrangements are being made for the removal of slurry from the vicinity of the lough.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 578 and 588 together.
In 1983 my Department spent £39,520.30 under the subsidy arrangements in respect of the removal of slurry from the Lough Sheelin area. A provision of £16,000 for the continuation of this subsidy was included in my Department's Vote in the current year but it is anticipated that the amount claimed from and paid by, the Department will not exceed £4,000. I propose to make a provision of £5,000 in my Department's Vote for 1985 to meet any outstanding claims in respect of slurry moved to 31 December 1984.
I am aware that in the years up to 1980 the quality of water in Lough Sheelin had deteriorated to such an extent that the continuation of the lake as a valuable fishery was seriously at risk. Towards the end of that year, a scheme was introduced for the transport of slurry from the catchment and a special State subsidy was made available towards the costs involved. This scheme has been effective in restoring water quality to a satisfactory condition.
Initially it was envisaged that the State participation in the scheme, including the payment of the subsidy, would last for two years (viz. 1981 and 1982) by which time the pig producers would have established a pattern of demand among recipients which could be continued on a voluntary co-operative basis by the producers themselves. In the event, special arrangements were made to continue the scheme during 1983, and again in the current year, incorporating a phased reduction in the level of State subsidy. These arrangements were intended to further strengthen the export pattern and to give the pig producers concerned sufficient time to adjust to the ending of State subsidisation and to take over responsibility for the voluntary operation and financing of the scheme.
Continuation of subsidy payments in 1984 was conditional on the pig producers giving an undertaking that they would assume full responsibility for the financing of the slurry transport arrangements from 1 January 1985. A written undertaking has been given by the Sheelin Farmer's Association on behalf of its members that it will assume both administrative and financial responsibility for the slurry transport scheme as and from 1 January 1985. The association also agreed to participate in the new management committee which will oversee the implementation of measures necessary for the preservation and protection of the lake. Statutory responsibility for pollution control will, of course, continue to be a matter for Cavan County Council and the Fisheries board.
I am satisfied that the orderly manner in which the transitional arrangments leading to the transfer of responsibility to the pig producers have been implemented provides an ideal basis for the continued protection of the lake, given a co-operative and responsible approach by the producers. There is no reason why producers in the Sheelin catchment should continue indefinitely to be treated differently to others engaged in agriculture (or, indeed, industry) in the rest of the country. Given the initial State encouragement and funding of the scheme, the onus now rests on the pig producers to accept their responsibility and legal obligation to dispose of wastes in a manner which does not lead to water pollution.