asked the Minister for Local Government if, in view of the difficulty of implementing the principle that polluters must pay, he will consider the introduction of a broadly based tax so that the present situation may be improved.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Pollution Tax.
97.
The introduction of a broadly based tax is not a matter for my Department. I do not know of any major difficulty in the way of general application of the polluter pays principle in the sense in which this is being advocated in the EEC and with appropriate exceptions as envisaged. The principle, and the recommendations of the Community in regard to it, will be taken into account in the development of pollution control measures.
I have been rethinking about the damage already done. Would the Minister retain in legislation the generally accepted principle that the polluter must pay? Would he also introduce a broadly-based tax to deal with the damage already done?
No. I have looked at that and do not agree that anybody should be able to buy their way out of trouble. I believe that no matter how rich a person is, if he does something that is wrong he should not be able to buy his way out of it. I understand what Deputy Lemass has been saying because it has been introduced in some countries already. If we introduced this people would do things because they felt they could get away with them by paying a fine afterwards. This would be wrong.
I had a bit of a rethink on this because there was a case made at an international conference by a member of the Minister's party. The way he presented the argument seemed to make sense to me. He is not a member of the Government.
One country in the EEC is already doing this, but I do not think it is a good idea.
I ask the Minister not to completely close the door on the proposition.
I have not.
Could I put to the Minister the kind of situation that can arise where a relatively small industry perhaps are guilty of causing pollution and where it would cost more money to stop the pollution than the industry could afford? On the principle that the polluter must pay it would be a severe hardship. Taking a broad review of the interests of people at home, including environmental and economic considerations, it may be that in such a case the principle should not be applied.
I think Deputy Colley will agree with me that hard cases make bad law.
There could be a lot of them in this country.
Unfortunately the situation could be that in the case of somebody who, as Deputy Colley says, was in a small way of business it might be rather severe on him. I would prefer to deal with it in another way rather than establish a precedent by allowing somebody with a very big business to claim he should get away on the grounds that this had been done previously. That danger is in it. I have not closed my mind completely to it, but what I have said is correct. I am not enamoured with the idea.