Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Nov 1972

Vol. 263 No. 6

European Project on Pollution: Motion.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Lemass)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves:

The Agreement on the Implementation of a European Project on Pollution, on the topic "Analysis of Organic Micro-Pollutants in Water"

a copy of which Agreement was laid on the table of Dáil Éireann on 2nd day of February, 1972.

This project forms part of the European Co-operative Programme in Science and Technology in which 19 countries are taking part. This programme was initiated by the European Economic Community. In addition to the EEC member-countries, including the three new member states, ten other European countries are participating in the programme.

The motivation behind the programme is the realisation in western European countries that the scale of research and development required to deal with many current problems is increasingly beyond the resources of single European countries. It is felt that these problems could best be dealt with by the pooling of the efforts of European countries in joint research and development programmes.

The exploratory work for the programme commenced in 1967 in a number of sectors. A number of the projects which have been considered have reached the operational stage. At a ministerial meeting on Science and Technology in Brussels, agreements have been signed by various countries in relation to the particular projects in which they propose to participate. Ireland has signed the agreement relating to the project dealing with the analysis of micro-pollutants in water, as well as indicating its willingness to participate in four other major projects.

The aim of the micro-pollutants project is the development of methods for analysing as completely as possible organic micro-pollutants in water. It is hoped that the project will result in the development of instrumentation enabling rapid and automatic analyses to be undertaken.

The results of the project should extend considerably our knowledge of the organic micro-pollutants present in water. This is a subject of growing concern because of the increasing diversity and complexity of effluent residues present in water, which may give rise to hazards to public health through various pathways such as drinking water, irrigation, food chains, et cetera. The immediate interest is in fresh water but the methods developed will be largely applicable also to sea water. The project will also facilitate the tracing of the origin of micro-pollutants and the assessment of the efficacy of treatment methods in removing them.

A copy of the agreement on the Implementation of a European Project on Pollution on the topic "Analysis of Organic Micro-Pollutants in Water" has been laid before the House I recommend this agreement to the House for approval.

Dr. FitzGerald

For some reason, I have not been circulated with a copy of the Parliamentary Secretary's introductory speech and I hope I have taken in what he said correctly. Why the departure from precedent in this particular respect?

The agreement is one we certainly support, but there are a couple of points I should like to raise. If I understand the Parliamentary Secretary correctly, he said this primarily concerns fresh water but it may have some application to sea water also. We have relatively more sea water than fresh water around us and we would, I think, be more concerned that the sea water implications of this research would be fully developed and that we would benefit from that. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the Irish contribution. What is to be the Irish contribution? Where sea water is concerned there would be special problems in areas like Dublin Bay and Cork Harbour. I understand the agreement makes provision in cases where countries do not wish to carry out this work to help to finance research in those countries. That would imply that we would undertake research on our own. Who will undertake such research here? Unless I missed something, I did not gather what in fact is intended. Will we undertake research here and who will do it? Where will the Irish project be located? What shape and form will it take? It is rather curious that the agreement should be presented without giving any explanation as to how the work will be carried on here, or whether it will be carried on here.

There is also the question of the contribution. I can see how the contributions were arrived at. A minimum limit was apparently fixed and we fall within that limit, but the effect of that system would be that the scale of contributions between countries would be in no way proportionate to their size and gross national income or to the amount of fresh water involved. That would obviously operate to our detriment because it seems to me that our contribution per head as a percentage of GNP would be ten times that of, say, France. This would seem to me to be excessive. Is there any reason why our contribution could not be related to the scale of our resources? Perhaps we have a particular interest and perhaps we intend to make a major contribution. If that is so, the Parliamentary Secretary remained silent on that aspect. He could have told us plainly what the cost would be, how our share was arrived at, what the proportions would be and why our proportion was disproportionate to our resources. The sum is small but, if we accept the proportion, we could be levied with a totally disproportionate sum in proportion to our economic strength. If these agreements multiplied, as they will in the context of the EEC, the burden would be considerable. It seems to me the Government have a duty not to concede any proportion which could be used against us in subsequent negotiations covering other international agreements about sharing the cost between the countries involved. The Parliamentary Secretary has a duty to tell us how the figures were arrived at and to assure us that the figures arrived at will not work to our detriment on future occasions in relation to other agreements.

I also want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to what extent this research is intended to produce solutions to the problem. The agreement does not seem to contemplate that but, in his closing phrases, I think he did say that the project would involve an assessment of the efficacy of treatment methods in removing micro-pollutants. How far will that go? Is it merely designed to test whether existing methods are, in fact, efficacious or will the project draw conclusions of a constructive kind designed to provide guidance for the development of future methods of dealing with pollution?

It is important to know how far this project goes because the agreement itself is not very specific on these points as I read it and the Parliamentary Secretary has not brought matters much further.

Those are the main points I should like to make. I am pressing for a fuller explanation on the financial side so that we will have some information as to who will do what work in this country. Or, are we in the position where, despite the very grave need to undertake work of this kind here—and certainly to do it as part of international policy would be very beneficial—we are exporting our contribution and paying somebody else to do some work somewhere else? Is that the case or is the work to be done here and, if so, by whom?

Mr. Cluskey

I intend to be very brief and all I should like to say on behalf of the Labour Party is that this kind of international co-operation is welcome. We believe there are other areas in which it could be used.

It is somewhat hypocritical for the Government to make such high-sounding utterances here this morning about the benefits of this project dealing with pollution while in our capital city we have two canals running through its centre and it does not need any research by experts to show that they are very heavily polluted. The Government are now entering into co-operation with 18 other countries—at some considerable expense, I presume, although we did not get the figure—and, at the same time, we can see the condition of these two canals which are in the ownership of a State-sponsored body directly responsible to a Minister. I sincerely hope the representatives of the other 18 nations will not visit Dublin and see the condition of these two canals and judge our earnestness by what they see.

Mr. Crowley

I also welcome this project. I recently attended the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in Rome where many countries submitted views on this subject. The vast majority of them are very concerned about the way things are going and if we do not take some action on an international scale we shall have nothing left to preserve. It is the general feeling in Rome that developed countries should in the main subscribe to this type of research as they were the countries that could afford to do it and that the greatest percentage of finance for this type of research should come from them.

As a Deputy representing west Cork where we shall have pretty extensive development entailing some danger of sea pollution, I am very interested in this type of development. Perhaps Deputy FitzGerald has something when he says we should know what cost is involved for us but we should not take the cost into account so much as the value of any projects undertaken on an international scale as far as we are concerned. As an island we have a vested interest in the protection of our sea water and our fresh water also, both from the tourist and the survival points of view, in that we need fresh water to survive.

In general, pollution can only be controlled on an international scale. The micro-pollutants in water require very advanced research of which I do not think we would be capable. We on this side of the House welcome all such agreements on this scale. We could even go much further and use the international forum as a place in which we could put pressure on developed countries to ensure that they allocate some of their vast resources for this much needed research.

In west Cork at the moment we are concerned that all necessary steps are taken by the people who will be erecting oil refineries in the Bantry area to ensure there will be no pollution of our sea. By the time they have obtained full planning permission I think almost every risk will have been covered and the danger will be absolutely negligible. Nevertheless, the dangers are there and that is where an agreement of this kind can be of enormous benefit to us especially if it produces any worthwhile solution to the problem. I shall be brief in order to give others an opportunity to speak, but I welcome the agreement wholeheartedly and hope it will pave the way towards further agreements on the problem of pollution.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I also welcome any international co-operation on this very important matter. Unfortunately pollution has reached such an advanced stage in many countries that they have had to spend enormous sums in recreating a water supply. What puzzles me is that we on these benches have been pressing for legislation on pollution from the Government and there has been no response. We have been told that they will introduce legislation. The Government must have known, having studied all the implications of EEC and so on, that some form of international legislation such as this would be put forward and therefore it seems extraordinary that the Government did not put their own house in order by having an antipollution Bill here long ago.

Anybody who imagines that pollution does not exist in this country should think again. One need only lean over the Liffey wall and sniff to know that the Liffey is entirely polluted. The same applies to the Lee in Cork which is also heavily polluted. If one wants to get an infective bronchitis or sore throat one can get both out of either the Lee or the Liffey by breathing the pollution coming up from these rivers. There is also advanced pollution in many areas of Europe and although we are an island the pollution existing in Europe and in their major waterways—which are considerable—eventually finds its way to the sea and reaches our shores. That applies not only to sewage pollution but to oil and other forms of pollution that are gaining ground every day in every part of the world.

Another factor which is largely responsible for pollution is the extensive use of detergents and this is something that has only come into existence in the past 20 or 30 years. This negatives treatment works and produces pollution. The Government have been extremely remiss in the matter of pollution. It is an extraordinary thing that when we are discussing this subject and bringing our provisions up to international level, it is a Parliamentary Secretary, and not a Minister, who should deal with the matter.

Mr. Lemass

I signed the agreement.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

This matter is important enough to warrant the attendance of a Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary accepts that pollution exists and is a vital problem. Will he give us some idea of what the thinking is at Government level? I should like to know what plans the Government have to deal with pollution whether from sewage, silage waste or other causes. Is it the intention to introduce legislation to deal with this or are we to go into Europe as the only country of the Nine who have taken no action on pollution? I do not know what reasons our Minister will be able to produce for our failure to deal with pollution.

In addition to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, he should indicate, as Deputy FitzGerald has asked, what exactly the agreement entails. Will it mean that we will have to pay a vast sum, disproportionate to our population and to our economic position, towards the analysis of pollutants? The House is entitled to that information.

In the context of our entry into Europe, the Government should have prepared briefs on the matter of pollution and be able to give the House more information than is contained in the meagre statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary. My sympathies are with the Parliamentary Secretary. He has been sent in here as a small boy because no Minister can face the House and explain why nothing has been done about pollution.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Andrews)

This, of course, is a very important document to which the Parliamentary Secretary has appended his signature. With respect to Deputy Esmonde, let me say that Deputy Noel Lemass is quite capable and more than able to deal with any problem that we may have to bring before the House. He has proved his ability in this and other respects.

I am a fresh water fisherman—for brown trout, for the benefit of Deputy Bruton who finds the whole thing a bit of a joke. Pollution is a very serious matter. I took the opportunity during the summer recess to go to County Cavan, where I have connections. My membership of the Inland Fisheries Trust entitles me to fish on Lough Sheelin. At the time Lough Sheelin was an open sewer, a receptacle for effluent from the surrounding area. Everybody knows where the effluent is coming from and where it is going to and the damage it causes and yet the situation continues.

A great deal of credit for publicity in relation to the condition of Lough Sheelin must go to Mr. Burrows, the fishing correspondent of The Irish Times. I thoroughly agree with what he says. If the lakes are not protected there will not be a fish left in them. If there is a good breeze, it clears the scum off the top of Lough Sheelin and it is possible to get a fairly decent fish but if there is a calm extending over a week or two, a scum forms on the top, in places to a depth of one foot. We must protect our heritage. I protest in the strongest possible terms against the destruction of places like Lough Sheelin.

The right to fish is not the preserve of any individual or group of individuals. Fishing is not exclusively a rich man's pastime. There are many lakes accessible to people who pay £1 to the Inland Fisheries Trust. They can go on any lake under the preserve of the Inland Fisheries Trust. May I pay a special tribute to the Trust who are doing a wonderful job against all the odds? There is lack of co-operation. The Trust have produced reports and continue to do so.

There are wonderful lakes in Connemara, many of which are free fishing lakes and which are pollution-free and will remain so unless a factory is sited on a nearby mountain from which effluent is discharged into the lakes.

If the agreement that the Parliamentary Secretary has signed will bring about a situation where we can preserve our heritage, he will have done a wonderful job for the country. If in the next 20 years people discover that our heritage has been polluted they will want to know the reason why. In future people will have more leisure time and will be looking for places in which to spend this time.

Anybody who suggests placing an oil refinery in the vicinity of Killiney Bay —the Bay of Naples of Ireland—has a damn cheek. It is incredible that anyone would suggest a plan under which oil tankers would come into Killiney Bay to offload. I will not go any further than that because I believe it is way outside the actual terms of the debate. I deeply appreciate the indulgence of the Chair, but I feel very strongly about this matter.

Dr. FitzGerald

I wish I had known he was so indulgent this morning. I would have said a lot more.

Mr. Andrews

I feel very strongly about the whole matter of pollution. We have an obligation to ensure that our country is pollution-free in every respect. We have not got a bad record on this, in the main, in comparison with other countries. One just needs to go to Germany to see the open sewer running through the heart of the country, the Rhine. About ten or 15 years ago there was a wonderful fish known as the Rhine salmon. There is not a fish to be seen in that river now. Going along the banks of the Rhine we had to describe it, unfortunately, as an open sewer, no more, no less. I say that without any denigration of the hospitality we received from our German friends during our visit to their country. That is the reality.

The Liffey is no more, no less, than that. I am very pleased that the Minister for Local Government—and I am sure that this is in addition to what the Parliamentary Secretary has signed— has said that this problem will be solved in the not-too-distant future and that Anna Livia Plurabelle will be that once more rather than Anna Livia "Plurasmell". Forgive the crudity; it is a rather heavy-handed joke, but there is a certain seriousness in it, nevertheless. I want once more to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for carrying out this very important function on behalf of the country, and to thank the House and the Chair for their indulgence.

Mr. Tully

The Parliamentary Secretary was even funnier than he realised. That is the funniest speech I heard in this House for a long time, with all respect to the Parliamentary Secretary who was being serious about it and who did not intend to be very funny. First of all, he compliments the Parliamentary Secretary on the signing of the agreement. The motion reads:

That Dáil Éireann approve the Agreement on the Implementation of a European Project on Pollution...

He then proceeds to tell us about the situation in Europe. He talks about the Rhine. If we have to look to the standards in the EEC at present and try to apply those standards to this country, the Liffey and the Boyne and every other river will be like the Rhine before very long.

Mr. Andrews

What is funny about that?

Mr. Tully

It is funny because obviously the Parliamentary Secretary did not appreciate——

Mr. Andrews

The Deputy has a perverted sense of humour.

Mr. Tully

I will accept that the Parliamentary Secretary may think that.

Mr. Andrews

I do not think it. I am just being funny.

Mr. Tully

This is his funny morning. He talked about his fishing experience in Cavan. I was born and reared within a stone's throw of the lake he talked about and I know that over the past few years it has become polluted. Who is responsible for that? In my opinion there are three factors causing pollution not only in Cavan but in other rivers and lakes throughout the country. Something should be done by the Government apart from signing an EEC treaty. The first cause of pollution is industrial effluent which should be stopped, and there is a way of stopping it. The second cause is effluent from silage pits which can also be stopped, and the third is raw sewage from towns and villages. No serious effort has been made by the Government to do anything about pollution and we are supposed to stand up and cheer because the Parliamentary Secretary tells us that this agreement has been signed.

He was also being funny when he said that in the years to come people would have more free time to fish. They will, unless we have a change of Government. Many people will have nothing to do except fish because no effort is being made to find employment for the thousands of people who are seeking it. I meet a lot of people who spend their time fishing—I am not quite sure whether they are giving the worm a bath or fishing because, in some of the places they are fishing, there is not much chance of catching anything. They are passing the time between their visits to the labour exchange. It is ludicrous for the Parliamentary Secretary, who is an intelligent man, to come in here this morning and treat us to this sort of thing when we know that, unless the Government decide to make an all-out effort to deal with the situation, all the agreements in the world will not have any effect.

I think—and I mentioned this previously in the House and elsewhere— it is extraordinary that the only method of sewage disposal is the old-fashioned system of piping it out to sea, or allowing raw sewage to flow into running streams or into a septic tank. We have now reached the stage where nearly all the reasonable sites where there is no public sewerage are used up, and local authorities and planning authorities are refusing planning permission. They claim there are too many septic tanks and there is no sewage disposal and, therefore, with a growing population, we will be in serious difficulty. The amount of suitable building land available is getting smaller every day. Because of this the cost of building sites is increasing. If a smaller number of sites is available naturally the demand is greater. The whole thing is tied up with the Planning Act and its interpretation by local authorities. My local authority are attempting to operate the Planning Act and are about to revise the county plan. This question looms large in that attempt. What can we do about the despoilation of so many places by pollution? No serious effort seems to be made.

One thing which was not referred to so far and which I think should be referred to is the question of air pollution. I drive on the Dublin-Belfast road every morning and, at the time I come in, there are many vehicles on the road, particularly many lorries, and particularly many Northern Ireland lorries. In the main they have no number plate on the back or they have a different number plate on the back and on the front. They are blowing out poison as they drive along. They cannot do that in the North, and why should they be allowed to do it here? I wonder do they use a different type of oil when they come in here? We talk about the danger of lung cancer from cigarette smoking but breathing the polluted air in this city is a greater hazard than cigarette smoking. Nobody seems to be enforcing the law.

The matters which give rise to serious complaint can be dealt with under existing law but nobody seems to give two damns about it. Nobody is prepared to enforce the law. If the Parliamentary Secretary is really serious about doing something about pollution he should not mind the signing of this document. It is grand in its way. It looks nice. We have our name on another international document. The sensible thing to do is to start from square one and use the existing legislation to prevent air pollution, water pollution, and land pollution which is also happening at present. Those are my comments on the matter before the House.

Mr. Cooney

This is a narrow motion——

Dr. FitzGerald

So we thought.

Mr. Cooney

——which asks the Dáil to approve the agreement on the Implementation of a European Project on the specific topic, "Analysis of Organic Micro-Pollutants in Water". I am very pleased to see it before the House. I hope that when the House approves it the Government agency responsible for representing Ireland in its implementation will press for as speedy and as large-scale a development as possible.

Deputies have referred to the causes of pollution. Generally, they are due to domestic sewage in the main, but becoming nearly as large a cause is effluent from the land as a result of the application of artificial fertilisers, and particularly in Lough Sheelin you have slurry from pig farms. These types of effluent have different types of reactions on the water they enter and their effect has to be scientifically determined in order that the scientists may find the answers and arrive at a solution. The scientific knowledge available to us and to Europe generally and the means of measuring pollution are defective in the sense that they are not able to provide the full information necessary scientifically to cure pollution and this topic we have been discussing is designed to come up with an answer to that.

In Lough Ennel in Westmeath we have a problem that needs as part of its solution a more detailed analysis than is at present possible. Going into that lake there is raw sewage from Mullingar and consequently Westmeath County Council must take some blame. However, we pass a lot of blame to the Government, in the persona of the Department of Local Government, in their failure to assist us in our efforts at an improvement. Part of the difficulty in making improvements there is due to inability to find the exact type of sewage in Lough Ennel, a mixture of domestic sewage and agricultural effluent.

The present measuring systems and the systems of analysis are defective in determining the proportions of the different types of effluent in the water and consequently of determining how they should be tackled. In so far as this motion is geared to improve that situation it is welcome.

The position in Sheelin is pretty bad. It is due to a new type of sewage, and whether we like it or not it is here to stay. One of the types of pollution in Lough Sheelin comes from what I shall call the industrialisation of agriculture in so far as intensive farming involves the use of artificial fertilisers, and industrialisation of pig farming in that there are now pig factories in that area which are discharging an immense amount of slurry, pig manure in other words. This is finding its way into neighbouring streams and eventually into Sheelin. Lakes in Leitrim are being polluted and if Lough Gowna becomes heavily polluted the entire Erne waterway system can become polluted by agricultural, not urban sources.

Our scientific knowledge is not sufficiently wide to enable us to analyse this to the degree necessary to find a solution. I have no doubt science will provide a solution. This motion makes us part of a European problem in which the resources of all the European countries may be used to find a scientific solution. I disagree with Deputy Tully that we should not take a headline from Europe. Perhaps we should not, but we should take a warning from Europe.

Mr. Tully

I am with the Deputy there, but I certainly should not take a headline from them.

Mr. Cooney

We should ensure that our waterways do not become like theirs and we are heading fast in that direction. We must prepare our defences in time, which they did not do in Europe, and this motion is in the forefront of our defences because the analysis of the causes is the first step towards the cure. I welcome the motion and urge the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government to ensure that whichever State agency are charged with co-operating in this matter will, if they find any slowness on the part of our European colleagues, take the lead.

Mr. Moore

I wish to make a few brief points on this small but important motion, which I welcome. I wish to compliment Deputy Lemass on the work he has put into this outside and inside the House.

Dr. FitzGerald

He did not put much work into it in the House. Two minutes is all.

Mr. Moore

He has not finished. Deputy Esmonde said nothing is being done. Of course something is being done. Quite a lot is being done, but the question is: are we doing enough? Deputy Tully said it is a job for the Government. This is not so, because he must appreciate that pollution begins with people, not with governments, and unless we get the message across to each person that he has a part to play, that he has a grave responsibility, we could reach a stage in the future when the human race could not go on existing.

Mr. Tully

Would Deputy Moore tell me how the signing of this document will get the people interested in pollution in this country? We have been conscious of it long enough.

Mr. Moore

Perhaps not sufficiently conscious as citizens. I am sure a lot of us were viewing the American presidential election results on television earlier——

Mr. Tully

A lot of us had better to do.

Mr. Moore

——and during the programme there was a shot of the refuse problem in New York city which is getting out of hand. We appreciated how much more polluted they are than us. We are not over-industrialised or over-populated and we still have time to learn from the mistakes of others and make every possible effort to ensure that this country will not become as bad. Let each of us play his part. Another Deputy mentioned the Rhine, the sewer of Europe, and I note that a new scheme for cleaning it has been announced at a cost of £100 million. The work is to be undertaken by Germany, Switzerland and the other countries affected.

Mr. Tully

Deputy Lemass put £14 million into the Boyne, and £100 million for the Rhine does not seem a lot by comparison.

Mr. Moore

I do not know what kind of humour Deputy Tully is in this morning, whether he is being "bitchy" or not. His interruptions are irrelevant and unintelligent. This is no joke.

Dr. FitzGerald

There is never much humour from the Fianna Fáil benches.

Mr. Moore

Deputy FitzGerald must back coalition, even with those rude remarks.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy is analysing my subconscious. I thought I was making a rude remark about Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Moore

I thought that in the Deputy's mind an attack on Fianna Fáil was synonymous with an attack on Labour. In England the Greater London Council are attempting to solve the problem of the Thames. The Thames was so polluted that at one time if a person fell into the river it meant instant death for him. However, the Thames has been cleaned and in some stretches of the river there is fish life and the authorities are hopeful that at some stage marine life will return to the entire river. Shipping traffic on the Thames is tremendous, and when we see what has been done to clean up that river we need not be too despondent about the Liffey, because the problem here is much smaller. As Deputy Andrews pointed out, Anna Livia Plurabelle may not be so "plurabelle" at the moment but the problem is not insuperable.

In the new Planning Bill I hope there will be some provisions to deal with possible pollution problems. It might be possible to have "no go" areas for certain industries. In the war against pollution it would save considerable money and time if we had some rules and regulations regarding the location of industries which might cause pollution. In a few months' time the Dodder river will be cleaned and this should help in the fight against pollution of the Liffey. I hope this measure will be our first step in playing our part in the struggle against pollution.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The House is discussing a most vital and urgent problem and I welcome any international co-operation to tackle the problem of pollution. Pollution can have serious effects on the citizens of this country. I hope the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary will not be used as an excuse by the Government to do nothing about the problem. However, I am afraid it may be used in the future as an excuse and that the Government may just await the results of international surveys. The danger may arise that national legislation will be shelved pending reports of international surveys.

I am glad so many Members of the House have contributed generously to this important debate. I should like to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary the serious problem of the pollution of beaches with tar and oil. When our beaches are polluted it means we must face a considerable loss in our tourist trade and many of our tourist resorts suffer.

If the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for Local Government would work together on this matter useful and practical work could be done. The first practical step which could be taken to combat pollution is to get the Department of Local Government to increase considerably allocations under the Sanitary Services Acts to the local authorities. Many of our rivers, canals and lakes are destroyed completely because local authorities cannot act in the matter.

There are various forms of pollution. In my constituency, when pigs are killed in the bacon factories the river is red for three-quarters of a mile. Surely it is not outside the scope of modern engineering to prevent this kind of pollution. In a heavily populated area this pollution causes a very bad stench and there is evidence that where industrial waste and discharge from agricultural undertakings including pig farms, is allowed to flow into rivers the fish stock is destroyed. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what steps will be taken to prevent the destruction of our fisheries? In this country we have some of the finest coarse fishing in the world and we should not stand idly by and allow it to be destroyed. This will happen if we do not introduce suitable legislation and take the necessary preventive action. Failure by the Government to take practical action means the fish stock is being diminished. I hope the Government will remedy this and take some practical action.

I should like to know what steps are being taken to ensure that local authorities close the open sewers that exist in most of our provincial towns. A report was submitted by a principal school teacher in my constituency that 195 children cannot use a playground because of defective sewers. Surely we can act on these problems without waiting for an example from Europe? We should not have to wait for standards to be set for us in Europe in relation to this kind of pollution. In 1972 our fisheries should not be destroyed because of pollution. Many public protests have been made about the open sewers in our towns and villages. We do not need a headline from Europe to get rid of this problem. All we need is initiative and energy to tackle the problem and ensure that open sewers are not discharged into our rivers and canals.

The use of septic tanks and dry toilets should have been discontinued long ago. In many areas in the midlands there are open sewers. Some areas have no proper sanitary facilities and we see loads and buckets of what we can describe as human offal being brought to the rivers or buried near the rivers. This constitutes a menace to public health and a disgrace to civilisation. No part of Europe is as primitive as parts of this country after 50 years of our own Government. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary visit parts of my constituency where there are neither water nor sewerage facilities and human offal has to be buried near where a large section of the rural population live. The stench is intolerable. Gas masks should be supplied. The River Barrow and the river which runs through Tullamore have been described as seriously polluted because of open sewage flowing into them. The public have protested about it over the years. Must we wait until standards are imposed from Europe before steps are taken to deal with pollution?

Deputy Moore and Deputy FitzGerald have referred to the pollution of the River Liffey. An effort is to be made to clean our waterways and our beaches. An effort is also being made to construct an oil refinery near the city. This has been referred to by Deputy Andrews. I admire Killiney and Dublin Bay. It would be a great pity to spoil that area by constructing an oil refinery nearby. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us of the Government proposals in relation to pollution. Have the Government any plans to close in open sewers? Are there any proposals for suitable sewage tanks so that sewage will not flow into our rivers and canals? It should not be beyond the bounds of engineering ability to cope with this problem so that fish life in the rivers and the lakes will not be destroyed.

There have been fish deaths in the River Brosna. This has been brought to the attention of the Inland Fisheries Trust. The Inland Fisheries Trust is one of the most progressive and outstanding organisations in the country. They have shown practical progress. They have commented on the way the coarse fishing and the brown trout fishing have been seriously affected by the failure of the Government to take practical steps by giving the local authorities financial assistance to pay for the necessary remedies to this problem. Legislation is necessary to deal with such matters. The general public cannot tolerate the situation indefinitely. The general standard of health calls for serious action in relation to immediate preventive measures to avoid pollution.

I am concerned about open sewers in our towns. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to come to Daingean in my constituency to see the open sewers flowing through the town.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is moving away from the motion before the House.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

We are dealing with the pollution of water. We have open sewers flowing through our towns.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not dealing with sewerage.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

These remarks will focus public attention on the serious wrongs being inflicted on people. The Parliamentary Secretary should try to influence his colleagues in the Government to introduce legislation to deal with pollution because they are responsible and they must give financial support to deal with it. I have spoken to people who know that industrial discharge is responsible for some of the pollution in our waterways. They are anxious to apply remedies but the remedies are expensive and there is no State aid to assist them in providing the proper tanks to prevent the pollution. We are committed to this matter on an international scale. Let us not use that as an excuse for delaying the introduction of legislation. The House would then have an opportunity of discussing this serious matter.

Mr. Treacy

I rise to support this motion in respect of the Agreement on the Implementation of a European Project on Pollution. My only regret is that the motion is so confined and restricted as to apply only to water. It is understandable that, in a small community such as ours, if we are to grapple effectively with the problems of pollution, we shall have to seek the aid and advice of the larger communities throughout the world. To deal effectively with this problem is beyond the resources of any one small country. Therefore, we can see the sense of seeking to deal with the problem by pooling the efforts of all the European countries in the matter of a research and a development programme. I am sorry that we are dealing with the matter in a rather piecemeal way. The pollution of water is very important but so also is pollution of the air and of the land. I appreciate that the measure is restricted but I am bound to say that I do not see any worthwhile breakthrough or achievement in the matter of dealing with the whole problem of pollution until and unless we put our house in order and set aside the present unsatisfactory position whereby pollution seems to be the responsibility of no particular Department.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that the Chair has already pointed out that we are not dealing with pollution, we are just dealing with an agreement.

Mr. Treacy

I appreciate that. I merely mention this in passing. It is all right seeking the support of European countries to deal effectively with water pollution, but what we need most of all is to have one piece of legislation and one Minister dealing with the whole matter of pollution. I think the responsibility is spread over several Departments of State. It would seem that the Minister for Local Government is primarily responsible but here today we have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, who represents in the main the Board of Works, coming in and dealing with this aspect of pollution in so far as it affects the European Community. This is indicative of the grossly unsatisfactory state of affairs.

We know well that we need more effective legislation to deal with the pollution of our rivers, lakes and sea coasts. We know that, in respect of planning, industry in this country has got away with too much for far too long without the kind of restraints and restrictions which a good Government should apply to ensure that new industries do not add to our pollution problem. Many of them have done untold damage by allowing effluent pollute our waters. Our laws are not sufficiently rigid in that regard. However, it is good to see that our planning officers are more rigid of late in ensuring that a proposed industry is properly vetted. We now have the advice of bodies such as the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and An Foras Forbartha to ensure that they conform to the best standards in respect of hygiene and the like.

There is simply no control at all over the effluent from farmyards. The experts tell us that the effluent from piggeries and silo pits is the most toxic, the most devastating of all, and it has been responsible for the elimination of fish life in many of our rivers and lakes. There is unbridled liberty in this regard. I understand that one hardly requires planning permission for the erection of a pig byre or a silo pit. This is a truly deplorable state of affairs.

We have been guilty of some mortal sins in this whole matter. Large industries erected on lakesides are appalling spectacles. It is bad enough to see hotels being built in these places of great scenic beauty, but to see crude factories erected there and to see obvious pollution going into the air, spilling out on the land and into the sea and rivers is deplorable.

As yet our country is very largely unspoiled. We see the signs of pollution all round us, but it has not reached the stage we have witnessed in European countries. Now is the time to put our house in order. Our country is largely unspoiled but with the kind of apathy and indifference I see it could rapidly become as polluted as the modern progressive countries of Europe. We escaped the effects of the Industrial Revolution. We are starting off from a very firm and sound base and, if we avail of the research, the information and the development programme of the combined effort of the European countries, we can prevent the disaster which has happened in so many countries.

I had the pleasure of attending the International Parliamentary Conference on the Environment in Vienna in June last with my colleagues here and with the Parliamentary Secretary. It was a very pleasant and happy experience and also a very enlightening one. It was gratifying to see the representatives of virtually all the nations of the world meeting for a week in Vienna and showing such dedication to duty, such great interest in the problem of the threat of pollution to our very existence in this world, the destruction by man himself of the beauty which God gave us. There was concern shown and important decisions were made there on how to deal with the problem. We who attended had a bounden obligation to come back to our national parliaments to report on the findings there and to impress upon our own people the urgency of getting together on a world basis and grappling effectively with the problem.

I agree with my colleagues who have said that the disposal of raw sewage into our rivers is a very serious problem. We who are members of local authorities know that, despite the best intentions of the members, the officials and the managers, local authorities cannot possibly cope with the proper treatment of raw sewage without State assistance. The finances of local authorities are limited and do not permit of the very costly process of dealing effectively with raw sewage. This problem will continue until the appropriate Department comes to the aid of local authorities and provides specific grants to enable them to tackle that job.

It is demoralising to have to witness this pollution going on. It affects many of our rivers and Dublin Bay, where large sections of it have become stagnant cesspools, because it is difficult to resolve the problem of directing sewerage out to the sea. Many of our State bodies have been very remiss in the matter of dealing effectively with animal life and bird life. There does not seem to be any co-operation between the various State bodies in dealing with the problem of pollution.

The Parliamentary Secretary controls a Department which can be of tremendous assistance in resolving the pollution of our rivers. We know much of the stagnation and pollution is caused because our rivers are silted up for want of dredging. In many of our small tributaries one can hardly discern the rivers from the streams any longer. The trees and their branches entwine; you would imagine you were in the Amazon jungle when you see many of the tributaries of the River Suir in my area. This is caused because we have not dredged the tributaries and the main arteries in the country. We have often asked the Parliamentary Secretary and the Board of Works to implement the arterial drainage schemes for our rivers. The stagnation, the hazard to health and the threat to fish life could be minimised if this extensive drainage work was carried out and if the channels of these rivers and tributaries could be cleaned of the rubble and dirt in them.

There were many State grants in the past which were widely used for cleaning those rivers and streams, such as the Local Authorities (Works) Act, but they have been stopped. No moneys of any kind, other than those from the rates, are available to effectively ensure that there is pure water in our rivers and lakes.

We all desire very much to see the day when we will achieve pure air, pure food and pure water. We all endorse enthusiastically any measures which are brought in here towards that end. That is why I support this motion, limited though it may be, in the hope that we can deal more effectively with the problem of ensuring that we have pure water.

Mr. Cosgrave

I would like to reinforce some of the comments that have been made with regard to the concern that is felt about certain recent suggestions which will affect the port area in Dublin and Dún Laoghaire. The Deputies representing maritime constituencies recently had a meeting with the Minister for Transport and Power and the Minister for Finance when this matter was discussed. The concern expressed then reflected the views of all public representatives at certain projected developments. It is important that this matter should be understood and recognised by the Government as one which concerns very many people. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department, and also other Government Departments, will realise this.

The pollution problem in this country is nothing like as great as it is elsewhere. That is almost entirely due to our circumstances; but it is equally true to say that we have been in this country, probably because it has not been a serious problem, rather complacent about taking the necessary precautions. Generally, it is only when a particular incident arises that focuses attention on the problem that either the public or people resident in certain areas become aware of and are alarmed by what happens.

The considerable publicity after the recent announcement by the Dublin Port and Docks Board has naturally alerted everybody, including the people residing adjacent to the coast, and different associations, who have made representations to public representatives. It is important therefore that we should, in passing this motion, reinforce it by getting the views of the elected representatives to bear on the Government and on the various Government agencies to take the necessary precautions while there is still time.

Deputies who represent maritime constituencies have from time to time had to deal with particular or specific problems of pollution in limited areas. I am naturally more familiar with my own constituency and places like Dún Laoghaire, Blackrock, Sandycove, Killiney and Dalkey. This particular scenic area is a tourist attraction, but it is also a very important fishing area. According to the statistics published last year, Dún Laoghaire had the fourth highest landings of fish in the country. That puts it in a very important position and concern is expressed by the fishermen as well as the residents that the problem caused by pollution will be very serious in this area.

Of course pollution results from effluent from factories and from sewage. Now there is also the threat of pollution from the oil refinery depot which would affect Killiney as well as the Bay generally. It is important that the Parliamentary Secretary conveys to the Government the concern at these recent developments. He should take this concern into account also in the work of his own office. We have time yet to take the necessary precautions. We have advantages which other countries do not have. Also we have been warned by the deterioration of conditions elsewhere. Although the problem of pollution here is less than elsewhere, it has manifested itself in a number of ways which should alert us to take preventative action while there is time left to do so.

This is a limited motion for the purpose of enabling the country to avail of the agreement on the implementation of a European project on pollution. Much of the analyses of micro-pollutants in water is of a technical nature and, obviously, it is a matter to which scientific and technical development can be applied to advantage. I wish only to reinforce what has been said already and to express particular concern on behalf of maritime areas, especially those in my constituency. We should ensure that every possible step is taken to prevent pollution that would lessen the attraction of these areas either for fishing or in so far as tourist amenities are concerned. Even more important are the amenities for the people who reside in those areas, whose health must be our main consideration and whose welfare must be our constant concern.

Mr. Bruton

One of the problems connected with discussions on pollution in this House and elsewhere is that contributions consist of very impressive oratory and much talk of doom but contain very little by way of hard proposals as to what can be done in this regard. In so far as this project will increase scientific knowledge of the subject as distinct from oratorically expressed concern, it is a step in the right direction.

First, I wish to ask: what are we discussing? What are organic micro-pollutants and how are they distinguished from non-organic micro-pollutants? What are organic macro-pollutants and how are they distinguished from non-organic macro-pollutants? This is the sort of basic information we should have. Not being scientists we cannot be expected to know the answers. The information is not contained in the brief. Neither have we been told in that brief where this research will be carried out. We have been given very little information as to the type of research involved. We have not been told what Irish agencies will be carrying out the research. I presume it will be carried out by An Foras Forbartha, but we have not been told that. An Foras Forbartha have carried out a survey already on the level of pollution in various rivers. We have not been told how that survey will fit into this research project. Neither have we been told how the terms of reference of that survey compare with the terms of reference of the survey to be carried out under this project. We are entitled to have this basic information, and until such time as it is at our disposal all the pious expressions of concern, from the Government benches particularly, are of very little value.

I consider it odd that the Chief Whip of the Government party who is responsible for the time of the House should come here and make a moving speech about pollution while, at the same time, his Government are refusing to provide Government time for the Fine Gael Waters Preservation Bill, which is one of the few legislative measures to deal with water pollution that has been introduced in this House.

Mr. L'Estrange

Hear, hear.

Mr. Bruton

This Bill proposes to set down minimum standards of tolerable levels of pollution in rivers and to make provisions for enforcing these standards. If the Parliamentary Secretary was serious in what he said he would have made provision for time to deal with our Bill. The fact that he has not done so belies the concern that he expressed so movingly a moment ago.

There are a number of other specific steps which can be taken to deal with water pollution but which the Government have not taken. It has been rightly pointed out by Deputy Esmonde that the use of certain detergents can lead to reducing the efficiency of sewage disposal works and other works involved in dealing with pollution. Perhaps that has been the most important point made during this debate. Most of the European countries have introduced laws to deal with the content of detergents so as to ensure that they do not contain materials which are pollutant. This is a matter that we should be taking note of, but we have no law here in relation to the content of detergents. I have raised this matter with the Minister for Health on a number of occasions but have received no satisfaction. This is a matter that has a direct bearing on water pollution. The research project and all the talk are of little value until we take legislative action.

Another area which is of great importance is the use of disposable non-returnable bottles. How many of these bottles find their way into rivers and render them unsightly? They are a contributing factor to the solid pollution of these rivers. The Parliamentary Secretary must be given credit for the fact that, while representing the Government recently at an international conference, he called for government control of the production of these bottles. However, when I tabled a question to the Minister for Local Government to ask him if he intended doing anything to control the use of these bottles, he told me that he had no such intention. I presume this is because the glass bottle interests have told him that Deputy Lemass said something that would not be of benefit to the party because the glass bottle interests are good contributors to the party.

These are the two levels of concern in respect of pollution that we have from Fianna Fáil. At international agencies, when they wish to impress their colleagues, they express much concern. They send out people like Deputy Lemass to make suggestions that are valid, but, when it comes to the hard business of implementing the suggestions here, the interests of the polluters who are strong contributors to the Government party are taken into consideration.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the motion before the House.

Mr. Bruton

This relates to the seriousness of the Government in regard to matters of pollution. The Parliamentary Secretary can say something abroad, but the Minister for Local Government can say something very different here.

Another problem which is very important in regard to pollution in this country is that of sewage disposal. On the Waters Preservation Bill I mentioned figures in this House as regards sewage disposal which indicated it was a major contributor to pollution. I understand these figures were incorrect and I should like now to withdraw them. However, I understand that the lack of sewage disposal facilities is a substantial contributor to pollution in the rivers. We want to know how substantial it is. I asked the Minister for Local Government if he could give me information as to which towns had no sewage disposal facilities and were discharging untreated sewage into the rivers, which towns had primary treatment facilities——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is going very wide of what is before the House, the implementation of this project on Analysis of Organic Micro-Pollutants in Water.

Mr. Bruton

I do not know what organic micro-pollutants are—the House has not been told—but they might be something which could be dealt with by sewage treatment and I believe I am entitled to raise the matter. I submit with the utmost respect, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that Deputy Andrews and other Deputies have been getting away with a lot of vague talk in this House, and just because I am making a specific proposal and trying to make a constructive contribution, I do not think it is fair——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has repeatedly pointed out that Deputies were moving away from what is before the House.

Mr. Bruton

Are or are not organic micro-pollutants likely to be contained in sewage?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is the agreement we are dealing with at the moment.

Mr. Bruton

If we want to implement the agreement and if the research findings coming from the agreement are to have effect, surely we must have information as to the various types of sewage disposal facilities which are in operation in the country. I asked the Minister for Local Government if he could give me this information as to how many towns had primary sewage disposal facilities, how many towns had secondary sewage disposal facilities, and how many towns had tertiary sewage disposal facilities. He could not give me these figures. We talk about planning for pollution when we do not even know the position as it stands. Yet he is the man in whose Department sewage plan proposals are held up for lack of approval. This is not planning, this is messing. I would ask the Government to bring their concern about pollution down from the level of oratory to the level of practical legislative proposals which can have a tangible effect on the level of pollution.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Lemass)

I am glad that the motion has been generally accepted. Perhaps Deputies have not read the agreement itself which is available in the Library, but it is a highly technical type of Bill and for that reason I thought it would be difficult for me to go into the great technicalities. However, I shall expand on my original brief now.

The first question I should answer is that asked by Deputy Bruton as to what we are talking about. In the title of this resolution "Analysis of Organic Micro-Pollutants in Water" I think that the word "organic" in this context means non-metallic chemical compounds, for example, insecticides and herbicides, and "micro" in this context means difficult to detect because of their presence in minute quantities.

Mr. Tully

Does "organic" not mean coming from a natural source?

Mr. Lemass

It is non-metallic. This is the description that applies to it in the context of the European Agreement. As I say, "micro" means difficult to detect because of their presence in minute quantities, therefore requiring special methods and equipment to detect them. I shall give a little more information on that later.

The EEC set up a working party in 1967 to study the possibility of co-operation in science and technology between the member-states of EEC and other European countries. On the basis of the working party's recommendations the EEC sent invitations to participate in co-operative research in selected projects to Ireland and the other applicant countries for membership of EEC—UK, Denmark and Norway—and five other European countries—Austria, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. All accepted. Last year four additional countries, Finland, Greece, Yugoslavia and Turkey expressed interest in taking part and their participation was agreed to.

I wish to clarify this matter because there is some misunderstanding and some Deputies referred to this as an EEC project. There are 19 countries in the whole programme but only 12 of the 19 countries are participating in this particular project. These are: The Federal Republic of Germany, which was referred to here in the debate, Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Portugal, the Swiss Confederation and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Seven working parties were established to examine the possibility of co-operative research in certain sectors. The sectors examined were: Information science, telecommunications, new means of transport, meteorology and oceanography, metallurgy, pollution and a European meteorological computing centre. By decisions taken in July and November of last year, the Government approved the participation of this country in the following projects: European computer library, research into factors affecting the utilisation of high frequency radio-waves, analysis of micro-pollutants in water, meteorological observing buoys, study phase, and a European meteorological computing centre.

The Government also approved participation by this country in two projects which as yet have only a minor status: Forward study of passenger transport requirements between major European conurbations, and standardisation of meteorological equipment.

In relation to Ireland's participation in this project it is proposed that some of the experimental work will be carried out in this country. This will take the form of a specific project, which will be the isolation and separation of organic constituents of Irish river waters.

Initially the work will be concentrated on the development of suitable procedures for the quantitative extraction of organic compounds in river water. The degree of recovery of organic matter will be monitored by total organic carbon analyses throughout the various stages of the extraction process. Gas/liquid chromatography, which is a special technique for the separation of chemical compounds from each other, and possibly liquid/liquid chromatography will be used wherever possible to resolve mixtures obtained. When suitable techniques have been evolved examination will be made of as wide a range of river waters as possible, enabling a significant bank of basic data to be compiled. It is not envisaged that attention will be paid at the outset to the identification of individual compounds or specific classes of compounds though, as work progresses, the scope will widen to cover this. The main direction of the project on the technical side here will be undertaken by the Department of Local Government. A senior research officer of An Foras Forbartha, seconded from the Department, has been nominated as Irish representative to the management committee in Brussels.

The estimated time for completion of the project is three years. The precise cost figure is not available but the cost of the total project will be of the order of £1.45 million, of which an average of £15,000 per annum will be met from public funds here.

Deputy O.J. Flanagan and, indeed, some other Deputies also, said that we will just pass this motion and then sit back and do nothing; there will be an excuse for doing nothing because we are awaiting the results in the report. That is not so. This matter, not only of pollution, but of environment and environmental control, are matters under very serious consideration by the Government. In fact, an inter-departmental committee have been set up to consider all aspects of air and water pollution. I am hoping we will have the report from this committee before too long. Naturally the Office of Public Works will participate in it because of its interest in the Shannon navigation, the national parks, et cetera.

Mr. Haughey

Is that committee open to receive suggestions and representations from the public?

Mr. Lemass

I imagine so. I imagine the report will be published after it has been considered by the Government.

Mr. Haughey

Could a member of the public draw the attention of this committee to a specific situation?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. I think that would be welcome.

Mr. Haughey

Could we have the secretary's address?

Mr. Lemass

The committee is under the auspices of the Department of Local Government and the secretary of the Department would be the person, I imagine, with whom to communicate.

I should like now to refer to Deputy Bruton's remarks about my contribution abroad when I spoke about nonreturnable containers. I should like to point out that that was the first international inter-parliamentary meeting to deal with these matters. If you like, it was a consequence of the United Nations' activity that parliamentarians felt they should get together and hold a watching brief on what was going on. Each country was asked to submit a problem existing in the particular country and to put forward possible solutions. The aim was, having expressed views at the conference, to get a worldwide consensus of agreement as to how the problem might be dealt with; unfortunately we did not reach that stage on this particular problem, but we did reach agreement on other problems.

In reply to the point raised by Deputy FitzGerald, this is a specialised project dealing with extremely small quantities of pollutants. An evaluation of results will be the next phase of a long-term exercise. With regard to the cost, it was agreed the contributions should not be based on GNP in this particular case. It was to be based on the minimum size of the research team. In other project agreements GNP has been used, but there is no precedent being created. Of the contributions, we pay the minimum. That is also the contribution paid by Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway. As in the case of Ireland, these countries will pay the minimum contribution.

With regard to Deputy Cluskey's point, this is one of the few areas in which immediate conjoint action could be agreed between the countries participating. I refer to pollution of canals. Deputy Cluskey expressed the fear that people from Europe might come here and see the condition of the canals. This is precisely what we want them to do. This is the area in which we would like to see some action taken. Arising out of all this, I hope we will be able to improve the situation considerably, though I understand that it will be improved as soon as the new Dublin drainage scheme goes through.

Deputy Tully argued that we should not look to the EEC to set our standards. May I repeat that this is not an EEC project?

Mr. Tully

The Parliamentary Secretary's brief says that this programme was initiated by the EEC.

Mr. Lemass

The programme is EEC sponsored and EEC administered, but there are 19 participating countries and it is, therefore, much broader than just the EEC.

Mr. Tully

That is a distinction without a difference.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Crowley was worried about possible pollution of the sea should an oil refinery be erected in his constituency. This resolution deals only with fresh water but, as a result of the techniques and the experience gained in this part of the programme, the same techniques and experience can be applied to sea water later on and it is envisaged that the scheme will be extended ultimately to an examination of micro-pollutants in sea water.

Mr. Tully

The Parliamentary Secretary's brief also says that the methods developed will be largely applicable to sea water also.

Mr. Lemass

I said that, but Deputy Crowley raised the point specifically.

Mr. Tully

I know Deputy Crowley does not want any more industry in his constituency.

Mr. Lemass

I think he favours this particular development. He is also quite right to be concerned about any pollution that might take place. I understand modern technology has reduced the incidence of pollution in this type of industrial development.

Mr. Tully

Everybody in a good job finds a good reason why an industry should not be established in his area.

Mr. Lemass

I think the Deputy is being unfair.

Mr. Tully

I am not talking about Deputy Crowley now.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Esmonde seemed to think that the attitude of the Government to pollution generally had been in some way downgraded simply because a Parliamentary Secretary was asked to handle this motion in the House today. I am sorry if my status is not high enough for Deputy Esmonde, but I can assure him I have been taking a great interest in this whole situation. I represented the country at the international conference in Brussels. My signature is on the agreement, if the Deputy cares to look at the copy of the agreement in the Library, and I believe there is no better person in the House to handle this than myself.

Mr. Tully

And there is a reshuffle coming anyway.

Mr. Haughey

Some of the finest pieces of legislation piloted through this House were piloted through by Parliamentary Secretaries.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

My remarks were not intended to be personal to the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Bruton

Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he could get Government time for Fine Gael's Water Preservation Bill?

Mr. Lemass

I am afraid the Deputy is going outside my scope. Fianna Fáil Deputies also have motions down for which they cannot get time. They cannot get Government time for these. They cannot even get Private Members time for them.

I commend this motion to the House and I hope it will be unanimously agreed.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that it will be impossible to implement these orders, regulations, or whatever they are, without some form of legislation?

Mr. Lemass

This is entirely a matter of research. This is the setting-up of technology to identify the problem and, having done so, to legislate. In the meantime recommendations will be coming from the inter-departmental committee. I understand the committee are nearing a conclusion.

Question put and agreed to.