Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Apr 1972

Vol. 260 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Waters Preservation Bill, 1972: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Carter

When the House reported progress on this measure before the recess, I was making some points in regard to the pollution of water and how we might set out in the direction of abating this horrible nuisance. It will be freely admitted here by all Deputies that this country is possessed of lovely lakes and streams, and at this stage in our development it would be too bad that the public in general should be allowed to forget this fact. There are many other countries who envy us the variety of scenery we have here, scenery which is made up of high vegetation, beautiful lakes, mountains and streams. It is regrettable that, in this modern age, the motor car, not to mention the affluence that goes with it, should be used to convey to the vicinity of a lake or river, trash which may give rise to pollution.

This measure deals with water preservation, and to this extent the scope for discussion is limited, but the preservation of water is something which should concern all of us. I referred previously to the fact that some of our lakes are already highly polluted, and this without the advent of high industrialisation. Lakes may become polluted from many causes. Intensive farming is only one way in which a lake may become polluted. It behoves all of us who live in these surroundings and who meet people who are engaged for a livelihood in raising livestock of one kind or another to find ways and means of reducing the degree of pollution of lakes which may arise from fertilisers, the spreading of nitrogen and so on.

As I said at the outset, we should start preserving our rivers and lakes in a practical way. We should educate the young about the danger of litter which leads to pollution. It is regrettable that if a local authority develop a lay-by it is not developed six months until it becomes a polluted area. There is something wrong with the civic spirit of a community which permits this to happen. Children grow up in this atmosphere and when they see their elders dumping refuse anywhere they will certainly follow this course. There should be a campaign against this, first of all, and, secondly, against pollution. On the Continent, in areas where there is a high degree of industrialisation, they go to great lengths to try to preserve the sluggish rivers they have there, to try to prevent litter and pollution, and in certain cities in Europe it is a crime to dump even an empty matchbox on the street. It is not so here; people here seem to be quite unconcerned about the dangers of this trend. It is high time that all of us— and when I say all of us I include this House and the various Departments of State—should, by every means open to us, condemn all sorts of dumping and make it a crime.

It behoves the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, who pay grants in respect of the erection of out-buildings, to explain to the promoters the dangers which may arise from untreated effluents discharged from those buildings. Similarly in the case of industry, the Department of Industry and Commerce should be alive to the fact that, while locating an industry in a given area may be a very helpful promotion to the community, they must take steps to see that it does not lead to the pollution of a lake or stream. I am not saying this is an easy problem to deal with. We have been living with it now for a long time and in the last ten years it has increased out of all proportion to what it was in the previous ten years. Local authorities should also be encouraged to provide dumps which can take the refuse of the community and which will be attended to and drained and prevented in future from polluting streams.

There are many elements which come into this whole matter, and one could go on at length about the dangers of indiscriminate development, by which I mean development that is not planned, and about planning towards the elimination of pollution of both the air and the water. Bear in mind that one can pollute vegetation just as one can pollute the air and the water, but water is, perhaps, more susceptible to pollution than any other natural element. Early on we set out to encourage the development of our lakes and streams. We encouraged both Bord Fáilte and the Inland Fisheries Trust to stock our lakes with game fish. We encouraged Bord Fáilte to invite tourists here every year for fishing. It would be too bad if when these visitors come in high hope of good sport, they should find themselves fishing in polluted lakes and streams.

I read recently about the pollution of vegetation in certain parts of England. A well-known species of tree has been affected by pollution. The more we become industrialised the more likely it is that we shall meet with the same catastrophe. We have some lovely forests in which we have invested a large amount of money. We have private planting. It would be too bad if pollution were allowed to affect our natural vegetation. If our vegetation is affected our lakes and rivers will also become affected.

To combat pollution we should start with the things we can accomplish. We are very careless about litter. In a certain town the operatives of the cleansing department clean up the town between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. every day. By mid-day one is up to one's knees in litter. If that is allowed to continue the problem of pollution will be almost incapable of solution.

Primary development and industrial development must go hand in hand and we must at all times ensure that, before development takes place, we are in a position to nullify the possible effects of pollution. We have not done that so far. We are all aware of the horrible scars left on certain industrial towns in the North of England as a result of open-cast mining and so forth. Do we want to see scars like those in this country? I do not think we do. Do we want to see our vegetation ruined? I do not think we do. Do we want the air we breathe polluted? I do not think we do. It behoves each and every one of us to play his part in abating this horrible scourge. About 18 months ago when one of our most beautiful lakes was denuded of fish because of pollution it was brought home to me vividly that pollution is a scourge. The water will have to be cleaned and the lake restocked. Would it not have been better in the five years before it became polluted to have taken steps to ensure that this could not occur?

The beauty of our countryside is not man-made and we have, therefore, a greater duty to preserve it. Steps will have to be taken and there are steps which could and should be taken to reduce the dangers of pollution.

Mr. Barrett

Everyone is now conscious of the threat of pollution to our environment. There are many things we can do to prevent pollution. We are in a fortunate position compared with highly industrialised nations. Our rivers have always been polluted to some degree, but the threat of pollution is greater today because of industrial development. One contributory factor to pollution is modern living and modern living standards. The movement of people from the land to the cities and towns is another factor in pollution. Social development is a factor. The biggest contributory factor is, however, industrial expansion. While we all welcome industrial expansion it is our duty to lay down certain conditions in order to nullify the danger of increased pollution and, with all the progress in modern science, technology, and so forth, this should not be beyond the competence of man.

We should be capable of protecting our waterways from any further pollution. It is only in isolated areas that we have pollution and we should be able to devise means of eliminating this. When you travel on the Continent and see the condition of the great waterways of Europe you become conscious of the terrible evil of pollution. Less than 12 months ago I was fortunate enough to be a member of a delegation travelling through Germany. I was amazed at the extent of pollution there. I saw great waterways like the Rhine thick with industrial pollution, completely devoid of fish life. We associate Heidelberg with everything good in life and with the finer arts but when you see the colour of the river as it passes through Heidelberg, which is well inland and far removed from the industrial Ruhr area, you become conscious of the great threat we are facing.

We have in this country some of the finest waterways in Europe. The Shannon is our pride and joy. I am fortunate enough to represent the county which is closest to the Shannon. There are many industries in our part of the country. As far as I know every step is being taken by our local authority and our planning authorities to prevent any pollution by these industries. It is only right that this should be done to preserve our environment.

We are also fortunate in this respect in that we have not got a dense population. There is only one other country in Europe, Norway, with a less dense population. We are also fortunate in that we have a generous rainfall which helps to eliminate pollution. We also have ample water resources for domestic needs.

The principal spheres affected by pollution in this country are rivers and recreational activities. These are the two fields which are in most danger. There is also the question of the expansion of agriculture. Being an agricultural country, many of our industries, such as milk plants, have an agricultural base. There is also the modern trend in cattle rearing of silage pits. These are big offenders where small streams are concerned. No stone should be left unturned by the people in charge of sanctioning grants to ensure that the effluent from these silage pits is properly treated and not allowed to flow into small streams. These people can prevent this by not sanctioning grants where such a danger exists. Local authorities should be more conscious than anybody else of the question of pollution from effluent and sewage disposal. I am sure they are quite conscious of it and will take the necessary steps to eliminate it where it exists and to prevent it in the future.

With regard to the penalties provided for not keeping up to required standards it might be difficult to operate the Bill. For instance, there could be more than one industry on a river bank and it could be very difficult to decide which industry was causing pollution. There is also the question of differentiating between a big waterway and a small one. Naturally, if there is effluent from a factory into a small waterway there will be a higher standard of pollution than if it were going into a great waterway like the Shannon. I can see difficulties with regard to enforcing the Bill and imposing the penalties contained in it. We are assured by the Minister for Local Government and his Department that they are more conscious than anybody of the dangers and I have no doubt that the Minister intends to bring in the necessary measures in due course to eliminate existing pollution and to prevent any further pollution. We owe this to ourselves but we owe it especially to future generations. Future generations will judge us by what we do now. We are duty bound to preserve our environment for posterity and to hand it over as we received it from previous generations.

Mr. Bruton

It is vital, in enacting legislation like this, if it is not to be in the realm of pious platitudes, that there should be an adequate staff and adequate mechanism for the enforcement of the standards which are being set. I believe there is within the Department of Local Government the wrong order of priorities. This is demonstrated most effectively by the fact that the number of staff in the sanitary services section of the Department is quite inadequate to deal with the very great responsibilities with which they are charged. They are charged not only with responsibility in regard to pollution but also with responsibility in regard to fire damage. We have one of the worst fire damage records in the whole of the civilised world.

They are also charged with responsibility for the ordinary question of providing water supplies and sewage facilities. If we compare the number of staff in that section with these very wide responsibilities with the number of staff in the roads section, and we already have probably more square feet of road per head of population than any country in Europe, we find that there are many more staff in the roads section in an area where there is not as great a need for action as in this section where there is a tremendous need for action. I cannot find the figures but I think there are about 160 people in the roads section as against 30 or 40 in the sanitary services section. If there is such an inadequate staff in this section and we are prepared to devote such resources to a section like the roads section, there will not be the staff to ensure that this legislation will be enforced. If this Bill goes through, I want to ensure that it will be enforced rigorously.

It is very important also that we recognise that rates of pollution will vary at different times of the day and, indeed, at different times of the year. It is important that the test be taken at the time of highest pollution. It is possible to get favourable figures of rates of pollution at particular points in rivers by taking the test at a time of day when it is not likely that there will be heavy discharges, in view of the low level of industrial or domestic activity at that particular time. This factor should be borne in mind. It should be a requirement that the test be taken at the time when pollution is likely to be at its highest because that is the time when the damage is done.

It is important to realise that at various times of the year there are high and low levels of pollution. I understand that there is the lowest volume of water in rivers in the months of February and August. It is very important, therefore, that tests should be carried out in those months when the volume of water is low because damage which takes place at that time will affect fish life. If fish are killed by pollution in February, there will be no fish available in March, April and May. If tests were carried out in March, April or May they might show that the level of pollution was not very severe. The damage would have been done in February, when the water level was low.

Agricultural practice should be guided by considerations of water pollution levels. I am informed that nitrogenous fertiliser will dissolve only at a certain high temperature. I do not speak with any first-hand knowledge of this matter but I am informed that if nitrogen is spread in cold winter weather it will not dissolve within a short time and will be washed away into a river. The low temperature renders plants unable to absorb the nitrogen. If a farmer uses nitrogen he should spread it at a time of the year when the temperature is sufficiently high to enable it to be dissolved. Undissolved nitrogen washed into a river becomes a source of pollution. If, as I am informed, this is the case, this information should be made available on a much wider scale than at present.

When standards are being established it is important that they should be realistic and modern. Standards were established in 1913 for water quality. It is fair to say that the type of pollution which occurred in 1913 was quite different from the type of pollution occurring at the present time. In 1913, the pollution was organic, self-destructive, caused by natural products. The pollutants worked themselves out of the system. Much of the pollution occurring at the present time derives from artificial products which are not self-destructive; they are persistent and if they get into a river they will remain there indefinitely. The standards to be enforced when this Bill is passed should not be based on the standards adopted by the Royal Commission in 1913. There must be new standards which will take account of the types of chemical pollutants now entering rivers.

Figures have been made available to me relating to the level of responsibility of various agencies for pollution of rivers. I am reliably informed that local authorities are responsible for 65 per cent of the pollution occurring in rivers at the present time; that 15 per cent relates to creameries, 10 per cent to farmers and the other agencies are not classified. If it is true that public authorities are responsible for 65 per cent of the pollution, these are the bodies to whom the Minister should direct his attention in the first place when this Bill becomes law. It is obvious that the main cause of this pollution is the inadequacy of the sewage treatment works being operated by local authorities.

Some time ago I asked the Minister for Local Government in this House if he would give me a breakdown of the sewage facilities available in the country and if he would indicate the areas which had primary sewage treatment, secondary sewage treatment and tertiary sewage treatment, these various levels of treatment indicating the level of pollution of the water discharged ultimately into rivers.

Mr. L. Belton

And which areas had none.

Mr. Bruton

Yes. The Minister was not able to give me the information I asked for. It was obvious that the Minister had not got the information in his Department. Otherwise, presumably, he would have made it available to me. To ask a man to deal with the problem of water pollution without this basic information as to the sewage discharge into rivers is asking the impossible. This information is a necessary tool in the performance of this task. The Minister, however, is himself responsible for the fact that he has not this essential information.

I have been told recently—again I have not first-hand knowledge—that the urban council in Monaghan have a very modern sewage disposal works but are unable to maintain them because of lack of finance, which is to some degree the responsibility of the Department of Local Government. I would be glad if this matter were investigated. If there has been capital expenditure on the establishment of these works, it is bad economics as well as bad environmentalism not to provide the necessary finance for maintenance.

Not only should standards be established but there should be an ongoing, continuous survey carried out to discover the level of pollution in rivers at various points and, as I said earlier, the tests should be made at times when pollution is likely to be highest so that the findings may be realistic. The results of the survey should be published nationally so that manufacturers and the IDA will be aware of them and will be able to consider the pollution factor in their policy for the location of industry. In the absence of this information it could happen that they would encourage the location of industries in areas where there was already an intolerable level of pollution. Because they do not have the necessary scientific data, it is possible they will do this and it is very important that this information would be available in published form throughout the year throughout the country. It should be available to the IDA and to individual industrialists.

Very often at certain times of the year industrialists may have to discharge an item which could cause heavy pollution if it were discharged at the wrong time. Such industrialists may have no other way of disposing of it. It is therefore important that they should be able to dispose of it at a time of the year when it will do the least harm. Because of river levels and so forth, they are unlikely to know the best time and it is therefore clearly important that they be given this information.

To ensure that this is done it seems to me to be necessary to establish an interdepartmental committee to oversee the entire question of water pollution. It is important also that there be co-ordination between the various authorities who are directly or indirectly concerned. An Foras Forbartha are responsible from the point of view of research; the Department of Local Government are responsible because the Minister is responsible for sewage and water schemes; so are the Department of Health from the point of view of the effects on health of pollution; the Board of Works are responsible in so far as they are concerned with arterial drainage; the Inland Fisheries Trust are responsible in so far as they are concerned with fresh water fishing; the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries are concerned in so far as they are responsible for maritime fishing—mussels and other shell fish are affected by polluted river mouths. That Department are also concerned with agricultural policy. The Department of Industry and Commerce are concerned because they may have inadequate policies in regard to industrial discharges.

Therefore, if we are to have a rational policy in regard to water pollution we must have co-ordinating activity in respect of all these bodies. It is therefore a sensible suggestion to say that an interdepartmental committee or, alternatively, a commission be set up and given enforcement powers.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Cunningham)

A new section has been set up in the Department of Local Government dealing specifically with environment.

Mr. Bruton

Is not that the sanitary services section?

Mr. Cunningham

This is a new section.

Mr. L. Belton

Since when has it been in existence?

Mr. Cunningham

It was established 18 months ago.

Mr. Bruton

I wonder if it has been provided for in the Book of Estimates.

Mr. Crowley

An Foras Forbartha do this work.

Mr. L. Belton

The Parliamentary Secretary has said that a new section has been set up.

Mr. Cunningham

With a principal officer in charge.

Mr. L. Belton

Dealing entirely with environment?

Mr. Cunningham

Yes.

Mr. L. Belton

Why was there no public announcement—why was it kept secret?

Mr. Cunningham

It is mentioned in the Estimates. It was announced by the Minister.

Mr. L. Belton

One would think such a major occurrence would have been announced publicly. Dublin Corporation have announced their intention to set up such a section.

Mr. Cunningham

This has been set up. It is not just the announcement of an intention.

Mr. Bruton

All that has happened is a purely semantic exercise in that the sanitary services section has been renamed.

Mr. Cunningham

It is not. This is an environment section.

Mr. Bruton

I have the Book of Estimates in front of me and it gives the sections—like the general section, the loans section, the administration section, the audit section and so forth. It gives "the sanitary services and environment section". This is just a renaming of an existing section. It is another instance of gimmick politics.

Mr. Cunningham

There is a specific environment section with a principal officer in charge.

Mr. Bruton

The Book of Estimates does not mention two sections. It mentions "the sanitary services and environment section", singular. That section is responsible for water, sewerage and the environment but also for the fire services. It has a total staff of 32 people whereas the road traffic section has a staff of 171. There is no separate section dealing with environment.

Mr. Cunningham

There is.

Mr. Bruton

Surely it would be in the best interests of the House that such a separate section would be mentioned in the Estimate. Can the Parliamentary Secretary refer me to the page in the Book of Estimates where it is mentioned?

Mr. Cunningham

I refer the Deputy to column 440 of the Official Report, Volume 256, where the Minister stated:

To indicate the importance which I attach to pollution I want to inform the House that a new section to deal specifically with environment has been established in my Department and they have been grouped, appropriately, with the sections in the Department which are dealing with sanitary services and planning.

Mr. L. Belton

That disproves what the Parliamentary Secretary has been saying. It only verifies that it is grouped with sanitary services.

Mr. Crowley

A separate section has been established.

Mr. Cunningham

An environment section must of necessity work in conjunction with the planning and sanitary services section.

Mr. Bruton

Presumably all sections in the Department must work in conjunction. The section which the Parliamentary Secretary said has been established does not appear in the Book of Estimates published today, much more recent than the Minister's speech. As I have said, this is just semantics.

Mr. Crowley

It is a matter of semantics on the Deputy's side of the House that he will not accept that there is a separate section.

Mr. Bruton

The final point I should like to make it that it is important that refuse disposal should be considered in regard to river pollution. Refuse should be the subject of proper collection services which would dispose of it in places not likely to cause pollution. Supervised dumping should be available to people, in particular at weekends, and officers of the various corporations and county councils should be available at the dumps to supervise dumping. It is only fair to say if you have dumping facilities available to people during the week at times when most of them are at work they will not be able to avail of them. It is very important that dumping facilities should be provided at weekends as otherwise people will be tempted to throw their refuse into rivers or some other places where pollution can occur. It is very important that there should be an adequate refuse collection service in rural areas. I know it is rather difficult to provide this in some places but there should be established collection points in rural areas where people can leave their refuse in well secured packages so they can be collected at a specified time each week by the scavenging service when it is on its rounds. All county councils should be encouraged to provide such facilities.

It is very important that there should be an adequate method of prosecuting people dumping refuse in rural areas. I understand at the moment that the county councils must themselves prosecute by means of a private prosecution and that they must get one of their officers into the court. He must act in what is called in legal terminology as a common informer in order to bring the person responsible to book. This is quite inadequate. Those officials are not anxious to do this. They are not policemen. They are not trained as such and they are not concerned in this way with law enforcement. They are there to do a different job and it is asking them to do too much to act as law enforcement agents as far as dumping is concerned. Dumping should be made an ordinary common law offence for which prosecutions could be initiated by the Garda. In places like Dublin, where we have heavy population and where there is a large amount of refuse, consideration should be given to retrieving from it materials which may be of value.

An Ceann Comhairle

This does not arise on this Bill, which deals with water preservation.

Mr. Bruton

A very heavy accumulation of refuse, even in well controlled dumps, can be a problem. There may be a difficulty in providing an adequate number of these dumps. If that is the case there may be dumping in private places which would lead to water pollution. It is very important that we try to decrease the volume of material which is in these dumps by retrieving any valuable materials. Ground glass which has been retrieved from some dumps in the US has been used for paving roads. In many other cases valuable materials have been retrieved by the use of various forms of equipment, which are now being developed in the US.

It is very important that this be done because it would minimise the volume of potentially polluting refuse in dumps throughout the country. The initial capital outlay involved in such equipment is expensive but it would be worth while in an area like Dublin, where there is a large volume of refuse. The world is gradually using up its resources of certain substances and we should try to use again various substances which are dumped. If we do not try to do this we may find that we will gradually run down our resources of such substances. Consideration should be given to the establishment of such methods of retrieving valuable materials from refuse dumps. It will not mean very much if we pass legislation like this unless there is adequate staff available to enforce the law as it stands and to publish adequate and detailed scientific information to ensure that a rational policy is adopted in the future.

Major de Valera

Some time ago we discussed the general problem of pollution. The menace of that problem was appreciated here. At the time some Deputies said that a theoretical approach to such a problem as this was not sufficient, that positive action was necessary and that there was a danger in dealing with a problem like this of indulging in what I called on that occasion "window-dressing legislation", that is, paper provision for what one would like to see without adequate arrangements for enforcement or for the practical application of measures to cope with the problem in question.

We are dealing with the more specific problem in this Bill of water pollution. I should like to make a suggestion which is in line with what the Minister has been doing already. A Parliamentary Committee should be set up to consider this problem, to keep it under continuing review, to help in advising on legislation and to sit particularly as a committee on whatever legislation is proposed. This would be a useful complement to what has already been done within the Department. This matter has already been receiving serious study within the Department where a committee has been considering this subject. That is a very good thing but a stage comes when such committees need their counterpart in the political machine, that is, in Parliament, and where eventually we will have to consider any legislation emanating from the work of the departmental group or committees. That is the first reason I am making this suggestion.

The second and more fundamental reason is that here we are in company with perhaps every other developed country in the world facing a problem which is becoming more and more apparent and one which will develop in future years. This is not something that will pass in a day; it is not something that we can deal with completely within our own boundaries. This is a problem which we will share in the future with the whole of humanity. It is not a problem that we can settle ourselves, we will only have control over part of the problem.

Because of this wider and more dangerous aspect I should like to suggest that this House should consider setting up a Parliamentary Committee on a permanent basis, a committee which can function as a select or special committee to deal with relevant legislation regarding the problem of pollution as it affects us at present and as it will affect us in the future. The problem of pollution is one we cannot escape, any more than people elsewhere. However, although a departmental committee would be useful, we must keep in mind the necessity for practically and effective action in dealing with pollution. Talking about it is not sufficient.

Deputy Barrett made the point that we are relatively fortunate in that our country has not suffered from the problem of pollution to a great extent as yet. Perhaps this is some compensation for the lack of development from which we suffered during the 19th century, but whatever its origin or cause, we must be thankful that today we have a problem that is less acute than that facing other European countries. Although we are in an area of the globe in which pollution has been very marked we have adequate supplies of pure water and we should not lose sight of this fact. We should be thankful for this, but more important than that we should be determined to keep this advantage.

In this debate we are primarily concerned with water pollution but we must realise that this is inseparable from atmospheric pollution, land pollution and so on. One of the more important aspects is the pollution of the oceans and it is important to realise that we cannot confine ourselves merely to discussing water pollution in this debate. For instance, tied up with this matter is the question of oxygen for humanity.

Deputy Barrett and other speakers mentioned that we have been very fortunate in having an adequate rainfall; in fact, we have an excess of pure water. For this reason we do not realise that other countries are short of fresh water—the more industrialised countries and centres of concentrated population are short of this commodity. The fact that we have more than an adequate supply of water may make us complacent but that situation can change and, so far as our rivers and lakes are concerned, it has changed already.

I was distressed to hear two speakers —one on either side of the House— speaking about the pollution of lakes because I know that they are speaking from their own factual information on this matter. Deputy Esmonde and Deputy Carter both gave instances of alarming pollution of our lakes—the lakes which we thought were good clean fishing waters.

It is a tragedy if pollution has reached the stage where fish are killed but if that were all the damage likely to result one might not be so alarmed. We must realise that if pollution has got to that stage it is another alarming symptom of the threat to nature and man's existence on this planet. It is obvious that many of our rivers are becoming dirty and the dangerous symptom shows itself when life in the rivers is killed. We discussed this matter before and I shall not delay the House with an analysis of it.

I have referred to the extremely polluted state of the lower reaches of the river Liffey. It is polluted in every way, not least by the discharge of untreated sewage and waste. It does not stop there. Even the rain is polluted in city areas, as I mentioned previously. Anyone who sees the smog ceiling that is developing already over the city of Dublin will have no difficulty in realising that the rain which falls is contaminated and putting that contamination into the ground and into the waters. That contamination is not insignificant, as I pointed out on the last occasion. We can be thankful that we have had rain. The atmosphere over this city is cleaner today because of the rain we have had recently. If the atmosphere has been washed to some extent, what has been washed out of it has been washed into the rivers and streams and waterways to add to the pollution of the waters.

Ultimately all life in the waters will be killed if pollution is not arrested or counteracted. It is because of that that I am joining with the other side of the House in this debate in advocating that steps should be taken to deal with pollution. I appreciate the gesture made in bringing in this Bill. It is right that it should be brought before this House. The Deputy opposite has done the right thing in bringing it before us, but a matter of this magnitude cannot be handled by a Private Member's Bill. The whole resources of the Government and the State are required to deal with it. That is another reason why a committee such as the one I suggested might be invoked.

Coming back to the pollution of the waters, people talk about the nuisance of pollution and the killing of fish. These are two very important points but, from a fundamental point of view, they can be regarded merely as symptoms of something much more deadly. I suppose humanity could live without fish such as those which live in river waters. I suppose humanity could survive without affording facilities to sportsmen to fish, and I suppose we could survive the inconvenience of bad smells and ugly sights, but let us remember that, objectionable as these things are, they are only symptoms of something worse. There is here a real threat to humanity. One of the difficulties in dealing with it in a local way is that our contribution to this great problem can only be in proportion to our own area, and our own size which is relatively small in relation to the totality of human existence on this globe.

Nevertheless, we will have to play our part with others for the survival of man here on this planet. It is highly desirable that we should play our part quickly to maintain the biological advantages which we still possess in this country through the relatively clean environment we have compared with other places. When one talks like this one runs the risk of being accused of being an alarmist and of saying dramatic things which have no real significance. The optimist will say: "Somehow or other we will get over it." That will prove to be a false comfort for humanity as a whole in dealing with this problem.

The waters of the world are an essential part of nature's balance and nature's equilibrium. We human beings are animals living within nature's system symbiotic with all the other species, all the bacteria, plants and animals which make up the life of this planet and condition its environment. The waterways of the world, and particularly the oceans, are of fundamental importance in the life cycle for all nature and for humanity in particular. We human beings like many other animals—all of them perhaps—are dependent on oxygen. Every one of us breathes a number of breaths of air every minute and without oxygen we would be dead in a matter of seconds.

The ordinary person does not stop to think how oxygen is provided. There is a wonderful cycle in nature in which the seas and the green lands and the plants play a part. The algae in the seas and the green of the plants are constantly regenerating the oxygen that is taken in by the animals in nature and destroyed or used up for the moment. The oxygen is used up by us, put back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and then the plants and the algae turn that carbon dioxide back into oxygen so that it is available to us again. That is the cycle.

A vital part of that cycle is the area of green or active plant matter: algae, forests, grassland and greenery generally available to the sun. Through the sunlight works this wonderfull cycle of the process of nature for us and it enables animals to work the other side, the using of the oxygen. This very cycle is threatened by the pollution of the oceans. The oceans contribute a significant part to the oxygen. When one reflects that already mankind has destroyed very large tracts of forests and other green land, and is also in certain areas blotting out the sun with smog clouds, one can see that there is a danger here which, if allowed to continue, must inevitably lead to disaster for man as well as for other animals.

Is that all theory? It is certainly sound to say that if you destroy the oxygen-producing elements of nature you will destroy humanity as well as other forms of animal life. Is the threat really there is the question to be asked. Here one finds some very frightening statistics becoming available. The pessimism of certain marine biologists in this regard is, to say the least, really frightening.

Mr. R. Barry

The Deputy and I are agreed that the problem is of such a serious nature that it should be tackled forthwith.

Major de Valera

The difficulty is that every right-minded person is agreed on it. Our trouble is to get action. This is one of the great difficulties of humanity in dealing with this problem. I am certain we agree on this. I should be very surprised to find one Deputy who does not agree that the problem is there. But what are we going to do about it? As Deputy Barrett on this side and Deputies opposite pointed out there is an urgency in this matter because we still have a good deal to say and contribute in this connection.

Mr. L. Belton

Immediate action.

Major de Valera

Immediate action is required. I was dealing with the question of whether or not it is only a theoretical danger. When you analyse it, as I have done, there is a threat but it all hinges on how great or how serious is this pollution of the waterways in the world as a whole. It is here that we must consider the views of the marine biologists some of whom are very pessimistic about it and maintain that before the end of this century the oceans may be dead, a thoroughly frightening thought for those who realise what is involved. If, for instance, the algae, the oxygen-producing entities in the ocean, were to be wiped out in that period we should be very near to a survival problem. Quite apart from having no fish, you would have no life in the ocean and you would have a serious disbalance of nature problems.

If nature gets out of balance a vicious circle is set up. There is, without doubt, serious alarm over this already. Somebody else mentioned that major rivers and lakes are no more than sewers, but they are now sewers at their capacity. In a sense the oceans through all biological history were a sink, but one that could absorb, so to speak, the refuse and convert it and restore it. Now, the danger is that they may become dead seas with nothing to give back and no further capacity to absorb or even be an effective sink.

I have heard somebody describe the Rhine as the sewer of Europe. In the case of the Thames, which was very bad, there is a ray of hope. The British have been able, at very great expense, to do something to reverse the trend in that case and I understand that fish have again been found in the Thames in regions where they had disappeared. That is a very wonderful and important achievement but it was done at tremendous cost that need not have been incurred if precautions had been taken in time. There is a lesson there for us. We already have the river Liffey—I do not know about the Lee——

Mr. R. Barry

We have the Irish Rhine, the Blackwater in Munster.

Major de Valera

I do not know first-hand what is the position regarding the Lee but what we have we should hold and keep clean. This is the urgency of the problem. Immediate action is needed to keep clean whatever clean waters we have. If we do that we are contributing our share in regard to the sea. Our contribution in reducing world pollution of the oceans may be insignificant but by looking after our own waterways we are making our proper contribution to the broader human problem.

Mr. L. Belton

We are lucky to have control over most of our rivers.

Major de Valera

It goes further than local authority sewage and industrial waste. I am sorry one has to see it this way. A very serious element in all this has been the get-rich-quick policy in agriculture generally all over the world, putting in fertilisers, pesticides and so on.

Mr. L. Belton

Get-rich-quick how are you!They were starving for too long.

Major de Valera

I do not mean it in that sense. I am not talking about the agricultural community but about humanity as a whole. Please do not misunderstand me. But there is a problem all over the world for all humanity in farming techniques and the use of fertilisers and pesticides to boost production artificially, regardless of the disbalance involved. This is an important aspect that must be watched and it is difficult to deal with.

Pesticides, things designed to kill, have been one of the major pollutants of the ocean, one of the major causes of disbalance, even more than raw sewage which is relatively harmless compared to the chemical and lethal pollution of pesticides and certain artificial growth stimulants. This will be a problem—to see that really lethal matter is prevented from getting into the water.

Raw sewage is perhaps less objectionable than DDT, because sewage is the type of waste that nature provided for and which could be dealt with by normal biological processes. Man-made poisons are different: they kill the agents nature has to process the natural forms of pollution. Much the same applies to plastics and petroleum products which are the really dangerous pollutants—oils, hydrocarbon compounds, inactive substances that form films and prevent the agents of nature from working.

Mr. L. Belton

I have not heard so much sense in this House in the last four months as I have heard in the past quarter-hour from the Deputy.

Major de Valera

Thank you.

Debate adjourned.