Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 23 Jun 1994

Vol. 444 No. 3

Environmental Protection Agency: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Browne

, Wexford): I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Environmental Protection Agency (Extension of Powers) Order, 1994.

a copy of which order in draft was laid before the Dáil on 21st June, 1994."

The Environmental Protection Agency (Extension of Powers) Order, 1994, laid in draft before this House is designed to extend to the agency in relation to licensed activities, a number of the enforcement powers already available to local authorities under air and water pollution legislation. The agency already has extensive enforcement powers under its own legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, in respect of the integrated pollution control licences which it will issue. This order will supplement and complement those powers; it will give the agency a wider framework of action in relation to licensed activities as envisaged under sections 100 and 101 of the Act.

I would like to place today's draft order in context for the House. Last April I made regulations providing for the commencement of integrated pollution control licensing by the Environmental Protection Agency. The licensing regulations provide that new activities in eight of the 13 classes of activity scheduled in the Environmental Protection Agency Act require integrated licences from the Environmental Protection Agency on or after 16 May 1994. Classes of new activity for which Environmental Protection Agency licences are now required include chemicals, minerals, energy, food and drink, waste, wood, paper, textiles and leather.

In April last, I also made an order identifying large-scale manufacture of pesticides, pharmaceutical or veterinary products, and the incineration of hazardous waste as the first priorities among established activities to be subject to Environmental Protection Agency control from 1 September 1994. I intend that new activities in the remaining classes scheduled in the Act, and existing activities in all classes, will be phased into the Environmental Protection Agency licensing system on a progressive basis. In the initial phases of licensing, I am satisfied that a focused approach is the right one, so that the anticipated level of activity matches the build-up of Environmental Protection Agency competences in this complex area, and that there will be no delays in processing new licence applications. It is my intention to closely monitor the early performance of the licensing system and the capacity of the agency to deal with further categories of activity.

Since formal establishment of the agency in July 1993 considerable progress has been made in building up its organisational capacity. The agency now has 102 staff based in its temporary headquarters in Wexford, Dublin and other regions. In 1994 it had a budget of £4.4 million, exclusive of any licence fee income, for its day to day operation. There is a substantial body of work underway in the four divisions of the organisation. In addition to the range of functions previously undertaken by the Environmental Research Unit, the agency has, for example, commenced preparation of a state of the environment report with a view to publication of a full report next year. It has also advanced preparation of national hydrometric and environmental monitoring programmes and of guidelines for local authorities in relation to sewage treatment and landfill sites. Data have already been published in respect of drinking water and river water quality. With the start-up of licensing, the development of monitoring systems and advisory services, its liaison with the newly established European Environmental Agency, and its obligations to provide public access to environmental information, the agency will place particular emphasis on establishment of environmental data bases.

Integrated pollution control licensing has introduced a new concept into Irish environmental management. It goes beyond the traditional framework of pollution control by providing for one licence to cover air, water, waste and noise. Recognising the interdependence of environmental media, IPC licensing seeks to prevent or solve pollution problems without transferring them from one medium to another. In carrying out its licensing and other functions the agency must have regard to the need to promote sustainable and environmentally sound development, the need for precaution in relation to the potentially harmful effects of emissions, the polluter pays principle and the balance to be achieved between environmental protection and economic and social development.

The Environmental Protection Agency Act and the licensing regulations make comprehensive and detailed provision for licence application and review procedures; substantial work has been undertaken by the agency to facilitate a smooth transition to the new regulatory framework. The agency will license activities on the basis that best available technology not entailing excessive cost — BATNEEC — will be used to prevent or eliminate, or where that is not practicable, to limit, abate or reduce emissions. In defining BATNEEC, pollution prevention techniques, including cleaner technologies and waste minimisation, are emphasised, rather than end of pipe treatment. BATNEEC notes are being prepared and will be published by the agency to provide guidance to license applicants and other interested parties. Draft notes for the chemical, waste and energy sectors have already been widely circulated by the agency for comment. A guide to the implementation and enforcement of IPC licensing has been published and the agency is now holding regional seminars at six locations to promote a clear understanding and appreciation of its licensing function. A small number of licence applications which had been with local authorities at the commencement date of 16 May have been transferred to the agency and pre-application discussions have been held with 19 companies.

The Environmental Protection Agency already has significant enforcement powers in respect of new and existing licences held by established activities in the transitional period from the date of application to the agency until a licence is granted. In effect, when an established activity becomes licensable, the agency takes over responsibility for the enforcement of current air and water licences or waste permits held by that activity.

For the purposes of ensuring that existing licence or permit conditions are met in the transitional period between the application for, and the granting of an IPC licence, relevant enforcement provisions of air, water and waste legislation were already extended to the agency under the licensing regulations.

Once a licence is granted by the agency, the conditions of the licence are fully enforceable by the agency. Deputies will be aware that the Act grants very extensive discretion to the agency in regard to the kind of conditions which may be attached to a licence, and that failure to comply with any condition is an offence under the Act. The legal processes already available to the agency under the Act to pursue non-compliance include summary prosecution or indictment; conviction on indictment carries heavy penalties — a fine of up to £10 million, or imprisonment for up to ten years or both fine and imprisonment. The agency has made clear that a strong and active policy will be adopted in relation to enforcement of licence conditions, with pursuit of legal processes where clear breaches occur.

Access to relevant pollution control provision of the air and water pollution acts, as provided for under the draft order now before the House, will strengthen and extend the enforcement powers of the agency in relation to licensed activities. I have brought forward the order so that the agency can act, if necessary, within the wider context of air and water pollution legislation as soon as it has issued its first IPC licence.

The powers being extended to the agency include application to the High Court for an order requiring the prohibition, termination or reduction of a discharge or emission, and in the event of non-compliance, the agency may undertake the actions specified in the court order and recover its costs from the offender; the service of notices specifying the measures, and the periods within which they shall be undertaken, necessary to prevent air or water pollution; prosecution of offences under general prohibitions on air and water pollution that is from emissions or circumstances not dealt with in the integrated licence; entry, inspection, monitoring, the gathering of information and prosecutions for the purposes of the proposed extended powers and the recovery of the agency's costs of taking proceedings and the payment of fines to the agency in certain circumstances.

This proposed comprehensive package of enforcement powers, together with the substantial powers and penalties already contained in the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, will complete the process in providing the agency with the teeth necessary to carry out its functions effectively under any circumstances. I strongly commend the resolution approving of the Draft Order to this House.

Mr. Barrett

Anything that can be done to prevent air or water pollution should be supported. I have no difficulty in supporting these regulations. The perception some years ago was that measures to create a clean environment were anti-business. That has changed and people are aware it is possible to have good sound development while at the same time protecting the environment. Business and industry have responsibility to the rest of society to ensure we have a clean environment to pass onto future generations and have accepted that responsibility.

I hope the powers vested in the Environmental Protection Agency will not have to be used very often. The best way to deal with environmental problems is to create awareness so that people become more conscious that what they do in their daily lives affects the environment. We do not have the right to pass onto the next generation an unpleasant environment that will damage their health. We all share the responsibility of ensuring that those who break the law are dealt with effectively and speedily. The transfer of powers from the local authorities to the Environmental Protection Agency under those regulations will make it more efficient to control emissions, stop water pollution and impose restrictions that will put an end to continuing pollution. Whether the local authority or the Environmental Protection Agency does that is irrelevant, provided it is done. I hope there will be no confusion of roles and local authorities will be aware of the role they must play. It is important that the Minister outline clearly to local authorities where their responsibilities lie so that the job can be done in a cost effective and efficient way.

I hope these new measures will not impose unnecessary additional costs. If we educate people about air and water pollution, there should not be a need to spend a great deal of money on enforcement of the regulations. Unfortunately, we would not be living in the real world if we expected that to happen. A great deal of work is being done in primary schools to make children aware of their environment and how it can be damaged so easily. What is being taught to children is making my generation far more aware of the environment. It is through our young people that everybody will be encouraged to be more aware of the environment.

The Minister referred to noise pollution, a problem I have raised for several years. People affected by noise pollution complain to their public representatives that loud music late into the night and early morning disturbs small children and old people who then cannot sleep. Noise pollution damages our environment and I am pleased that regulations to stop this pollution are being introduced to make it easier to ensure that those who continue to cause noise problems which disrupt and upset the rest of the community cease their activities so that people can live in peace. I welcome that.

Noise pollution is as bad as other forms of pollution and should be tackled quickly and effectively. Nobody wants to be a killjoy and if someone has the odd party at home, their neighbours will understand if they explain there will be some noise for a couple of hours, but it is the continuing intimidation by loud music every night that can make life absolute misery. People come to me looking for transfers from local authority housing estates because the consistent level of noise by the person living beside them causes them hardship.

Noise pollution from road traffic is a problem we can control. We are investing money in building motorways, bypasses and so on but to date very little account has been taken of the noise pollution emanating from the traffic using these motorways, particularly when they are near urban dwellings. For several years I have been highlighting the problems caused by the Shankill bypass which was built very close to some local houses. The lives of the people living in those houses have been transformed. Where they once lived in peace and harmony, they now have vast volumes of traffic passing by their doors day in and out.

If we build these types of roads we have an obligation to ensure noise pollution is not generated by the volumes of traffic. Clear and acceptable standards should be set down by way of regulation to which the local authorities or the National Roads Authority would have to adhere. There is little point in saying that we follow the British guidelines. We are quite capable of deciding a level of noise that is acceptable and will not disrupt people's lives and we must force the relevant authorities to adhere to those standards. In regard to the people who are suffering at present, very little funding should be required to take appropriate steps, such as installing double glazing, in order to make life more tolerable for them. We must not forget those who are suffering from noise pollution at present while we are considering those who may suffer from it in the future.

I support these regulations. I hope they will make the whole process of eliminating pollution easier and more efficient. I hope the powers will not have to be used often and that we will succeed in what we are trying to achieve, namely, educating people to respect the world we live in so that we will not have to employ armies of inspectors to prevent people dumping into our rivers, lakes and seas as well as polluting our air. If we can eliminate that we will have succeeded.

We must get the message across to the business community that these types of measures are not anti-business. We can have good, clean industry as well as a pollution free environment. Modern technology has ensured that industrial development can take place in harmony with a clean environment. It is not anti-business to suggest ways and means of protecting our environment.

Mr. Molloy

This is an important measure. There is no doubt that our clean, green, natural environment is our great national heritage. The present generation is fortunate that industrial development is taking place in this country in a more enlightened age. We have seen the ravaging of the environment in other countries throughout Europe and other parts of the world due to industrial development in an unenlightened age. This generation and future generations have a great obligation to protect Ireland's natural environment. Fortunately, the value of the environment from the point of view of the economy is now understood and more appreciated than was the case in the past.

We must be extremely vigilant at all times to ensure that mistakes are never made. It will be too late if mistakes have to be corrected subsequently; we must ensure they are not made at the outset. The whole purpose in establishing the Environmental Protection Agency was to have one national body that would have full power and authority to protect our environment from improper development and be in a position to take immediate action to deal with any interference with the environment, by way of air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution or in any other way.

The Environmental Protection Agency is an expert and competent body which has the ability to deal with environmental protection. Prior to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency there was a lack of public confidence in the existing mechanism to enforce environmental control and protection. The number of local authorities — more than 30 — who had responsibility for control divided among them meant that none of them could have the competence to deal with complex developments.

The function of the Environmental Protection Agency, as established by the House, is to license, control and monitor key activities including chemical and pharmaceutical production, intensive agriculture, the production of food and drink, incineration of waste, the production of iron and steel, the manufacture of paper pulp and many other activities in that sphere. The agency was given the power by this House to grant an integrated licence for all activities within this area and the Minister referred to that in his speech. As the Environmental Protection Agency is a new agency, power is being given to it on a phased basis and we accept that. Many people would perhaps wish to see the agency proceed more rapidly in establishing itself firmly and taking on all the functions provided for in the Act.

Under the Environmental Protection Agency Act, each new development requires the positive affirmation of the Dáil and Seanad. That is not always a feature of Dáil legislation. When the former Minister of State brought the Bill before the House she deliberately constructed it in such a way to ensure that no future Government could alter the functions of the agency or change its remit without the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. That is why the present Minister of State is seeking an affirmation of the extension of these powers. That is appropriate and I believe the House will be willing to give its approval.

The purpose of the orders for debate is to transfer the licensing functions from local authorities to the Environmental Protection Agency. My party welcomes this move. Some questions need to be asked, however, about the Government's commitment to the development of the role of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Minister stated in his contribution that only £4.4 million has been provided in the 1994 Estimates to enable the agency carry out its functions and that it now has a staff of 102. I am advised that in 1989 the agency estimated its requirements at approximately £8 million. In the light of that, the £4.4 million would appear to be a very small sum compared to the agency's anticipated requirements as far back as 1989. I do not know whether the Minister can give an adequate assurance to the House that this agency is being properly funded and staffed by the Government in order to enable it carry out its functions in the most efficient and rigorous fashion.

There was a demand from the public for the Environmental Protection Agency to be the champion in protection the environment and have all the resources necessary to exercise its powers. The Environmental Protection Agency is not fully operational and it would be premature to pass judgment on it although we have high hopes that it will become an environmental watchdog. Much of the pollution emanates from public bodies and local authorities are serious offenders in many cases. Malfunctioning machinery emits poisonous smoke into the atmosphere and there are illegal smoke emissions from health board furnaces. The public are dubious about the genuineness of public bodies tackling this issue. Is the agency properly funded?

The great test for the Environmental Protection Agency is whether it is prepared to take on public bodies and prosecute them for their offences. If it does the public will have greater confidence in it. I have no doubt that, given the resources, the Environmental Protection Agency will become the champion of the environment.

A decision was taken that the agency will be decentralised and located at Johnstown Castle, County Wexford. The State is required to maintain Johnstown House. Teagasc previously occupied the site but no longer has the manpower to maintain the house. The State decided to build a new premises for the Environmental Protection Agency in the grounds in spite of the cost of maintaining the house. How is this expenditure justified? The Environmental Protection Agency board is meeting in Dublin and is based there. Where will the board meet when the premises are ready? Is it a question of half-hearted decentralisation? The Minister of State is from Wexford and I hope he will ensure the commitment is honoured.

I understand that almost all the members of the board work in the public sector. I mention that because I said earlier the public sector is often the biggest polluter. Is there a need for the private sector to be more strongly represented on the board? The annual report has not yet been published. What is the statutory requirement in that regard? When will it be published?

Deputy Barrett mentioned vehicles causing air pollution. A parliamentary question was put down by a member of my party on Tuesday, 21 June asking the Minister for the Environment: "if, in view of the fact that bus exhaust emissions are a serious contributor to pollution in our cities, the regulations, if any, that are in place, in line with our European obligations under Directive 93/59/EEC, to introduce measures against air pollution by motor vehicle emissions; and if he will make a statement on the matter". The Minister replied that Directive 93/59/EEC specifies analogous air pollution standards for new light commercial vehicles including some minibuses with effect from 1 October 1994. Will the Minister assure us that the regulations will be in operation by that time?

Cuirim fáilte roimh ar ordú seo.

Mr. Sargent

Ní féidir liom ach fáilte a chur roimh an reachtaíocht seo, ach ní dóigh liom gur leor é sin a rá. Is beag seans a bhí ag Teachtaí ó tháinig an Rialtas isteach, ceist an Environmental Protection Agency a phlé, agus is áthas liom an deis sin a bheith againn anois. Ag an am céanna feicim nach bhfuil mórán suime ag Comhaltaí eile sa cheist mar nach bhfuil ach mé féin agus an tAire agus a chomhleacaí anseo. Pé scéal é, tá pointí áirithe agam le díriú ar an Aire agus a pháirtí.

The Minister may remember that An Foras Forbartha, which did a credible job, was axed suddenly in 1987. Fianna Fáil has been in the dock since then as far as its motives in the area of environmental protection are concened. It has been a long court case. For many of us, 1987 is a faded memory and for others, like the young people in the Public Gallery, it is not even a memory.

An Foras Forbartha was abolished against the advice of the Departments of Environment and Finance. A great deal of expertise was lost, as was the library, which I made great use of at the time. Does the Minister regret that decision? The Environmental Protection Agency has a lot to live up to. There was considerable anger expressed at the time and Deputy Quinn described the decision as incredibly stupid and short-sighted. Unfortunately the Progressive Democrats described it as encouraging but that was before I beat Deputy Harney in the European elections in 1989.

It was announced that the Environmental Protection Agency would come into being during the lifetime of the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrats Government and was heralded as being far more than a PR exercise. It was to restore public confidence in environmental legislation. I hope it will.

At Question Time last Tuesday the reply to a question about what progress was made since the Hickson fire last August did not inspire confidence. Eleven recommendations were made but no action was taken apart from ongoing reviews. "Reviews" are a euphemism for doing nothing. The Hickson fire will be the acid test in determining the effectiveness of the agency.

The order to extend the power of the Environmental Protection Agency is not very radical in terms of improving the situation. Both the county councils and the Environmental Protection Agency are suffering from an identity crisis in this area. I understand that the Environmental Protection Agency intends to take on board the pollution control and regulatory functions of the county councils. I would sound a note of caution in this regard as, difficult as it may be to believe when one sees what they are capable of doing in other areas, the county councils have a good deal of expertise in this area. There are some very good people in county councils working on pollution control with very few resources — they do not even have mobile phones on which they can be contacted when they are out of their offices — and endeavouring to keep up with the job they have to do. By virtue of their size and functions, county councils can be the worst polluters, yet the Environmental Protection Agency, the acknowledged experts in environmental protection, cannot take them to court or suggest any changes to the Government.

Another bugbear is that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have any substantial input into the measures to deal with noise pollution. My predecessor, Roger Garland, tabled amendments on this problem when the Bill was being debated in the House. There was an ongoing dispute at that time between the residents of St. Margaret's, which is to the west of Swords, and Dublin Airport about noise pollution. This major problem needs to be tackled.

The Environmental Protection Agency has been heralded as a great new organisation, and I hope it lives up to its reputation. However, when compared with An Foras Forbartha, it is both under-funded and understaffed. The agency will find it very difficult to live up to its reputation if it is not given more funding and staff. During the mid-eighties An Foras Forbartha had a budget of £5.5 million and a staff of 200. The Minister proudly announced today that the Environmental Protection Agency would have a staff of 102 and a budget of £4.4 million. The agency cannot be expected to achieve more than An Foras Forbartha if it has a smaller budget and fewer staff. The expectations for the agency are somewhat over-optimistic and I would urge the Government to take a realistic look at the situation before it heralds the agency, a recycled An Foras Forbartha with, on the basis of figures, much less potential, as a wonderful new invention. For the sake of the environment and future generations I hope I am proven wrong in this respect.

Ba mhaith liom cúpla rud a chur in iúl don Aire atá ag titim amach i dtíortha eile. On the question of noise pollution, Schipol airport in the Netherlands is very aware of its environmental responsibilities and is governed by laws in that regard; it does not adopt an end of the pipeline approach. The "polluter pays" principle is very worthy but we should be seeking to avoid this through the establishment of an integrated management production chain for agriculture and industry. The brief of the Environmental Protection Agency should be widened so that it can advise on planning and help cut the distance between work and home, so to speak, another enormous contributor to environmental degradation. It should also be able to make recommendations on road pricing and fare reductions, thereby increasing the use of public transport by the public. Every year 30,000 houses in the Netherlands are insulated in an effort to reduce energy use and it is proposed by the year 2000 that 50 per cent of its organic waste will be converted to compost, thus avoiding landfill problems.

The Minister should broaden the brief of the Environmental Protection Agency so that it can make recommendations to Government on issues of policy. The Minister should not regard this as a final measure but rather as a long overdue move in making the Environmental Protection Agency as effective as An Foras Forbartha, which is sadly missed.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

I welcome the additional powers being given to the Environmental Protection Agency. As a Cork Deputy, I am very conscious of the very strong pharmaceutical base in Cork, a major source of employment which gives very meaningful wages to its employees. This is not to say I am not conscious of the necessity to be very vigilant in licensing and monitoring the industry. The Environmental Protection Agency has an open door policy with the public and is fair in its dealing with both the public and industry. It is in the interests of an industry which has taken a major bashing in recent years to ensure that it complies properly with the laws and regulations, and a genuine attempt is being made throughout the pharmaceutical industry to ensure that this is done.

I very much welcome the decision to decentralise the Environmental Protection Agency but regret that no centre has been located in Cork. It is necessary to have regional centres and I strongly urge the Minister to consider siting a regional centre in the extremely well equipped Cork County Council laboratory in Inniscarra. On 1 September approximately 30 of the industries which come within the ambit of Cork County Council in terms of licensing and monitoring will be transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency. Therefore it stands to reason that instead of people travelling from the centre at Johnstown a centre should be located in Cork city so that the expertise of the agency will be available to the people there.

I am sorry Deputy Sargent has left the House because he mentioned the Hickson plant. Pharmaceutical companies in general are of one mind to ensure compliance. For example, Hickson's recently applied to Cork County Council for a licence. In fairness to the company, I should say my understanding is they have withdrawn that application to the local authority. This means the Environmental Protection Agency is afforded an opportunity to monitor the application and issue the licence, subject to whatever restrictions and/or conditions they deem necessary. That is a further indication that all those industries down there are willing to put their backs behind the Environmental Protection Agency, to come together in a unified manner to ensure that our environment is protected.

I should warn the Minister that there is a grave danger here of overlapping the roles of the Environmental Protection Agency and local authorities nationwide. In Cork County Council we have an extremely efficient staff in the environmental section. On the transfer of 30 industries to the Environmental Protection Agency, 67 members of the staff will remain the direct responsibility of Cork County Council. Particularly bearing in mind the extremely expensive equipment involved it would be sad were we to have duplication in staffing. A properly integrated approach is needed in this area.

I should like to see the Environmental Protection Agency and Cork County Council make much greater progress in their dealings, particularly in regard to the availability of the laboratory in Inniscarra so that, at the end of the day, we shall have a proper monitoring-licensing system of which we can all be proud.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Browne

, Wexford): I thank Members for their contributions, which demonstrated that there is wide agreement that we must continue to build up and strengthen the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency. Now that licensing has commenced we are completing the first phase of this strengthening exercise.

The Order before the House is an important support of this process which, along with other standing provisions of the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, will place the agency in a strong position to supervise and monitor the environmental impact of licensing activities and enforce high environmental standards.

Deputies Sargent and Batt O'Keeffe referred to the Hickson plant in Cork. As I said during Question Time this week, a number of recommendations of last year's Environmental Protection Agency report have already been implemented. I am satisfied that the new Environmental Protection Agency licence now required for this plant will provide the best framework within which to pursue the agency's recommendations. The company is aware already of the agency's licensing requirements from pre-application discussions. A full licence application must be submitted by 1 September next. Now that the agency will be dealing directly with Hickson's I am confident that the recommendations to which Deputy Sargent referred will be complied with fully.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe made the point about ensuring there would be no duplication of staffing. I would hope that will be the case. I foresee the Environmental Protection Agency and local authorities working together. It is appropriate that any immediate response to an emergency should emanate from local authorities in that they have the requisite manpower and equipment resources to provide local emergency cover. But the Order before us correctly requires that the agency, in addition to the appropriate local or sanitary authority, must be informed as soon as practicable after any occurrence of an accidental discharge or emission, thereby allowing the agency speedily to advise and assist in an emergency without duplicating that emergency response. The agency can also activate its enforcement powers, as appropriate, in the particular circumstances of any accident. I would foresee them complementing each other's roles rather than duplicating them.

Deputy Molloy mentioned an earlier figure of £8 million as representing the full running costs of the agency. However, that estimate pre-dated the agency as ultimately agreed by the Oireachtas and established in 1993. In the first full year of its operations, while the agency is in its formative stage, the resources provided are substantial. Of course, we will be closely monitoring the position, ensuring that its future financial provisions match the continued strengthening of its operations.

It should be remembered also that the licensing function always had been anticipated to be self-financing. Recently I made regulations establishing fee levels for licensing applications which I predict will yield substantial moneys to the agency, possibly a figure approaching £2 million in the first year. In addition to the £4.4 million provided by Government, the agency will derive additional income, estimated at some £500,000, from local authorities for services provided to them. Therefore, we are talking about £4.4 million, £2 million and £500,000, almost £7 million, approaching the figure of £8 million referred to earlier. I can give the House an assurance that moneys will be made available to the agency as required.

Deputy Molloy mentioned the commitment to establish the headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency in Wexford. Bearing in mind that I represent the Wexford area I am totally committed to having its headquarters based there. Unfortunately, for different reasons, the castle first nominated for its headquarters proved too costly to renovate and refurbish to the requisite standard. The agency's headquarters will be based at Ardcavan in the short term, where very soon the staff there will number 26. Again, in reply to Deputy Molloy, I can say the full membership of the board will be based in Wexford and their meetings take place there, as required. Obviously there may be times when board members will move about but generally board meetings will take place in Wexford. In addition, permanent headquarters will be established in Wexford as soon as possible.

Deputy Molloy asked what would happen to the castle. The Office of Public Works are examining the castle at present with a view to ascertaining how it can be developed in the future. A number of suggestions have been put forward, including mine, that it be developed as a heritage centre for the south-eastern region. All of those options will be considered in ensuing months. I assure the House that the headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency will be based permanently in Wexford so that in time the agency will have a permanent structure there.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe inquired about a regional centre in Cork, something he has been very vocal about in recent years, to the point of demanding at one stage that the headquarters be based in Cork. I am pleased that Wexford won rather than Cork, for once. I can assure Deputy Batt O'Keeffe that the Environmental Protection Agency has already signalled that it will have a regional centre in Cork. I am sure, as the Environmental Protection Agency develops, that centre will also develop. I will pass on the Deputy's views to the board of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Deputy Barrett spoke about noise hazards. As the House will know, regulations were implemented this week in regard to minimising such noise hazards, abolishing the cumbersome procedures we have had heretofore, rendering it easier for concerned citizens to take appropriate action through the courts against people causing excessive noise, exhorting local authorities to do likewise. Obviously those new regulations are only in their infancy. I hope to see them improved and further developed in the future. Deputy Barrett also mentioned that traffic noise was not covered under the regulations made last week. Under the recent Roads Act there is provision whereby the Minister can empower a local authority, or the National Roads Authority, to deal with excessive noise caused by traffic in any given area. That regulation is at present being examined and, hopefully, will be implemented in the very near future.

I thank Members for their general welcome of this Order. As Deputy Molloy said, at the end of the day we all want to see the Environmental Protection Agency the champion out there, protecting, enhancing and preserving our environment. I have no doubt, from the manner in which they have operated over the past six to nine months — particularly in the case of the incident in Cork and other incidents, and their involvement in the past week in the River Lung fish kill incident — they will live up to the standards expected of them when first established.

Question put and agreed to.