asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if his Department approve of the proposals by Galway Corporation to discharge raw sewage into Galway Bay at Mutton Island; and the action he proposes to take in this matter.

My Department were consulted in January 1977 regarding an application by Galway Corporation for a foreshore licence in respect of a proposed sea outfall at Mutton Island for the Galway main drainage scheme. This proposal incorporated a contingency plan for the erection of an effluent treatment plant at Mutton Island if adverse effects were indicated as a result of the proposed discharge.

As the proposals constituted no apparent threat to fisheries interests, my Department indicated that we had no objections from the fisheries viewpoint to the issue of a licence, though on the condition that the corporation undertake a programme, to be discussed and agreed with the Department, to monitor at regular intervals water quality in Galway Bay. The purpose of this condition was to ensure that any adverse effects arising would be quickly detected, and I understand that it was incorporated in the foreshore licence subsequently issued to the corporation.

There have been significant advances in recent years in scientific knowledge regarding the effects and consequences of sewage contamination of shellfish. In the light of information currently availmentarie able, my Department recently initiated a re-examination of the position regarding the proposed discharge at Mutton Island, and I will let the Deputy know of the outcome of these considerations.

I am very grateful to the Minister for the full and frank answer he has given which will help to alleviate much of the concern in the Galway area. It is clear now that the Department are taking some action in this matter. It was felt that the previous permission they granted was allowing the corporation to proceed with the discharge of this effluent without treatment. Can I take it that the Minister supports the need for treatment of the effluent prior to discharge into Galway Bay as was originally proposed?

I want to point out to the Deputy and the House that it is an offence under sections 171 and 172 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1979, to discharge deleterious matter into water. There is a statutory obligation on me to ensure that this does not take place. Where I have a suspicion or where there is any chance of that taking place, I have a statutory obligation to act. The Deputy can be assured that, until we are satisfied with the discharge proposals including, if necessary, the provision of a full or adequate treatment plant, we will not allow a discharge which could be harmful or damaging to the fish stocks in the area.

I am grateful to the Minister again for adding that to his original statement. What is the present status of the licence granted in 1977 by the Minister for Communications in regard to the proposal to proceed with the construction of the new sewerage scheme without treatment?

Foreshore licences may be revoked by giving three months notice to the Department of Communications.

Revoked by the Department of Communications?

Yes.

Can I take it from the Minister's replies that he is now fully acquainted with the dangers which were inherent in the sewerage scheme as planned and that the local residents and I have the Minister on our side in our objections to Galway Corporation proceeding with this scheme as designed?

The Deputy can take that. We have views on the discharge of deleterious matter into water where we are trying to develop mariculture projects. We will object strenuously. That is our view at the moment. We are fortunate in having clean water around the coast and we intend to keep it that way for the development of mariculture. That includes Mutton Island.

May I be allowed to congratulate the Minister and to assure him of the fullest possible support from this side of the House? This is the first major break-through in this matter in a campaign which has gone on for the past four months.

4.

asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if he approves of the continuing discharge of raw sewage into Galway Bay from Knocknacarra sewage scheme; and if this presents any threat to the quality of shell-fish in the area.

There is no evidence that the discharge of sewage from the Knocknacarra scheme presents any threat to the quality of shellfish on commercial beds in Galway Bay, the nearest of which is some distance from the outfall point. Accordingly, I have no reason to object to the discharge. My Department will, however, keep the situation under review. What I said previously will apply here also.

I am very pleased to hear that. Is the Minister aware that many lobster pots are laid in the area adjacent to the discharge point and I am surprised to hear that his Department do not think it interferes with shell fishing. Will he review the matter because all the Barna fishermen fish for lobsters along that coast?

Lobster pots are of a mobile nature in that they are put in a certain place and taken away. If they are set close to an outfall point I agree damage may be caused to them but it is the fishermen who come near the discharge point and not the other way around. It is not the same as having a permanent structure for mariculture purposes in place and having a discharge point put beside it. Lobster fishing takes place on a mobile basis.

Will the Minister agree that this is an area where lobsters are available for catching? The local authority planned a sewerage scheme discharging sewage into the waters adjacent to the traditional lobster fishing area.

The position I maintain on this is that if we find that damage is being caused by the Knocknacarra outfall — and that matter is under review — appropriate action will be taken to rectify it.

Is the Minister aware that Galway County Council are planning stage two of the Knocknacarra scheme and propose to enlarge the outfall and increase the quantity of effluent but do not propose to provide any prior treatment other than maceration, which would not be adequate?

I presume that in due course the application for permission either to increase the volume of outflow or to provide a new outfall will come to our notice in the normal way——

Before the scheme is designed, not like Oranmore.

In view of what the Deputy has said, I will investigate the matter and let him know the position.

I understand from an earlier statement by the Minister that he is against any untreated discharge of any kind into the sea or water. Will he accept that the time has come to be more positive and to have laws that will stop any untreated sewage going into the sea or water?

There are laws already in existence in relation to the discharge of deleterious matter into waters and that is the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959. These laws may not have been implemented strictly but they are there and there is power to implement the laws to ensure clean water. As far as I am concerned, they will be implemented.

In view of all the discussions and the questions that have been asked in the past few months, will the Minister not agree that there should be greater co-ordination between his Department, the Department of the Environment and local authorities who are proceeding to design sewerage schemes without consulting the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of Communications? They do not consult the Departments until the design work has been completed and much money spent, as happened in the case of Oranmore.

That seems to be another question.

There is a lack of co-ordination between the various bodies. Would the Minister like to comment on that?

I will endeavour to come back to the Deputy on the matter. I will try to co-ordinate the efforts of both the Departments.