Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the tone of the Minister's response and I appreciate the fact that most Senators have taken on board points I have made. I wish to further clarify my position. I am raising this is because I believe it has implications for policy positions and decisions that Irish Water is taking.

I refer back to the example cited. There is an acute scenario involving E. coli or something in the water. Statutory regulations set out that if E. coli is found in the water by the EPA then a boil water notice is put in place, and the HSE is the body that makes the order. The HSE informs Irish Water, and Irish Water must then stipulate that people must boil water before using it. However, it is more of a grey area when the comes to other issues such as pollution by trihalomethanes, THMs. Frankly, we are not overstepping the mark in the regulatory area. There are various scenarios under which State agencies are advised, or else people are allowed to make recommendations to them. At the end of the day, it will be a decision for the HSE and Irish Water, etc., in respect of whether a public health notice is issued. In these Houses, joint Oireachtas committees can make recommendations, but it is up to the powers that be, whether the relevant agencies, the Departments or the Minister, to take them on board within the statutory framework and make a decision.

The issue of THMs is interesting because the World Health Organization is the body that issues guidelines internationally. The guidelines we had up until recently allowed for 150 µg per litre in the water, but this was reduced further to 100 µg/l. The standard in Canada and the United States is 80 µg/l. I understand the level is 50 µg/l in Italy and 10 µg/l in Germany. It is not as if we are world leaders in respect of THM levels.

The county councils were the bodies that tested water for THMs and so on, and they would have sent the results to the EPA. The EPA would have checked the results against the international benchmark laid down. If the tests found that the level of a particular substance exceeded the recommended limits, the EPA would contact the county councils and instruct them to put remedial measures in place. The EPA was doing this but the county councils were not living up to the letter of the law. This meant they had to be threatened with legal proceedings. Now, Irish Water has been threatened with legal proceedings if it does not do something by next November.

In an ideal scenario I can see where the Minister is coming from and how the system should work, but it is not working. This is why I envisage a crucial role for the proposed group to make recommendations. I appreciate what Senator Bacik said on section 5, but the difference is that this amendment would allow for recommendations to be made as opposed to simply comments and suggestions. It is a little stronger.

The international study carried out by the WHO on THMs came up with guidelines. The value for chloroform was developed from a study showing hepatotoxicity in beagle dogs that had ingested chloroform-based toothpaste for 7.5 years. I am not a mad scientist, but this is what the report states. We know that we have been ingesting the water for over eight years in Connemara. The tests to which I have referred show the levels to be carcinogenic over a seven-and-a-half-year period. We know we have been drinking the water for at least eight years in the Connemara scenario. Yet the EPA and the HSE are telling us that we need not worry about it. Representatives of Irish Water make little of the situation when we raise it with them.