asked the Minister for the Environment the steps he proposes to take to end pollution of rivers, streams and coastal areas by the local authorities under his jurisdiction.

The main problems in regard to pollution arising from the disposal of local authority sewage effluents occur in older systems which, while they were adequate when installed, have become overloaded due to the housing and industrial expansion of recent years.

The normal ongoing sanitary services programmes include works necessary for the elimination of pollution or its prevention where there is a danger it might occur.

All new local authority sewerage schemes are designed to ensure that the effluent is disposed of without causing pollution in receiving waters. The pace at which inadequate sewage disposal systems can be updated depends, however, on the amount of capital that can be made available for the sanitary services programmes as a whole and the competing needs within these programmes for urgent drainage and water supply facilities for new housing and industrial developments. Thirty-one sewerage schemes incorporating satisfactory disposal arrangements have been provided recently or are under construction. The cost of these schemes is in the region of £23 million. Work is expected to commence shortly on a further 15 such schemes costing about £5 million and a further 12 major schemes are at advanced planning stages.

I gather from what the Minister said that he does not necessarily intend to introduce any new proposals to eliminate the problem. I wonder does he share my concern at the grave paradox which exists, that the local authorities who are planning authorities trying to implement planning legislation and anti-pollution legislation are some of the largest polluters themselves? Does he believe an initiative on his part might be necessary to try to do something about this?

I share the Deputy's concern and I am dealing with the matter.

Has the Minister an initiative of some kind in mind?

I have, yes.

Would the Minister like to elaborate on it even slightly?

Not at this stage. I share the Deputy's concern about the matter.

Would the Minister agree that an initiative is no use without money to back it up? The Minister requires money and the State will have to provide money. Would he not agree that from the very start, this State ignored almost completely the necessity to provide sanitary services and this has resulted in what Deputy Keating has just been talking about? I am not blaming the Minister because he was not even around at the time.

It is possible that it was neglected, I agree, and that people were not very conscious of this problem until comparatively recent years.

The good work which we started will continue?

I will continue the good work.

Is the Minister aware that not one single local authority treatment plant carries out tertiary treatment, and even the 31 plants presently under construction are for secondary treatment only? Would the Minister say whether it is desirable that tertiary treatment ought to be included?

If it is not included, as the Deputy says, I will certainly have it examined.