I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
In bringing this Bill before the House I do so in the expectation that there will be little objection to its main principles. It has already been considered by the Seanad and I am glad to say was well received by that House. It has also been examined by the Water Pollution Advisory Council who have indicated general acceptance of its main provisions, subject to certain qualifications. I will deal more fully with the views of the Water Pollution Advisory Council later on.
At the outset I should say that the Bill is based largely on the recommendations of an inter-departmental working group whose report was published in 1973. The Bill does not propose the setting up of any new administrative structures at this stage but it will provide the means to secure effective control of water pollution and it will also facilitate a co-ordinated approach to overall management of water resources.
Before considering the main provisions of the Bill I would like to put before you some facts about the extent of the water pollution problem. We are in the fortunate position that, unlike many other countries, we have on the whole abundant water resources which are relatively free of pollution. While the availability of water varies from area to area, the adequacy of our water resources has been demonstarted by the fact that the position with regard to water supplies remained generally satisfactory in most areas during the recent long dry spell which posed very serious problems for some of our European neighbours. The dry spell has of course also brought home to many people the fact that water constitutes a valuable national asset which must be safeguarded and cannot be taken for granted. Water is required in large quantities for industrial, agricultural and domestic uses. It also supports a valuable fishing industry and it is needed for a variety of recreational purposes which have important tourism implications.
While, as I have said, our water resources are relatively free of pollution there is evidence that serious pollution is occurring in some places. Such pollution where it occurs is localised and mainly confined to stretches of rivers downstream of urban areas and industrial enterprises. This was found to be the case in the comprehensive quality surveys carried out by An Foras Forbartha on Irish rivers. An initial survey covering the main water systems in the country—121 rivers to a total length of nearly 3,000 kilometres—was carried out in 1971 and reported on in April, 1972. The results showed that 7 per cent of the total length of rivers surveyed was in bad condition; a further 10 per cent was in the doubtful category and the remainder was found to be satisfactory. Since special attention was paid in the survey to river stretches in which pollution was known to be a problem, it is probable that water quality in the great lengths of main river channel which were not surveyed would generally be satisfactory. In 1972-73 An Foras Forbartha carried out further investigations into the quality of stretches of rivers totalling 400 kilometres. Almost all of the stretches selected were stretches which the earlier survey found to be unsatisfactory. The results of these investigations were published in April, 1974. They showed that 14 of the stretches examined were reasonably satisfactory, 15 were satisfactory only part of the time and seven were in a polluted condition. They also indicated that most of the pollution encountered was of an organic nature and that toxic conditions, caused for example by the presence of heavy metals, occurred in only a few cases.
In addition to the surveys of rivers, An Foras Forbartha also carried out a preliminary survey of 53 lakes, the results of which were published in May, 1975. The purpose of the survey, which was the first overall examination of lakes on a systematic basis, was to make a tentative assessment of the extent of enrichment of the more important and representative lakes in the country. While the survey did not attempt a definitive assessment of the position in particular lakes, it indicated that certain lakes are showing indications of or tendencies towards excessive enrichment. An Foras Forbartha have commenced more detailed studies of selected lakes.
While the overall existing situation cannot therefore be regarded as being serious, it is desirable that steps be taken to secure improvement in the quality of waters which are polluted at present and to ensure that in future the quality of our water resources is maintained to a satisfactory standard consistent with their various beneficial uses. The purpose of the Bill is to provide a suitable statutory framework to enable this to be done. While it has been possible to secure some degree of control under existing legislation, in particular the control operated by planning authorities on discharges to waters from new development, the planning legislation was not designed to deal with all aspects of pollution control and it has been evident for some time that other existing statutory provisions—many of which date back to the last century— are inadequate. If we are to provide essential safeguards against the everincreasing threat of water pollution we need specific legislation.
I will now deal with the main provisions of the Bill. The explanatory memorandum which was circulated with the Bill goes into a fair amount of detail and I will confine myself to summarising the more important provisions. These include the introduction of a system of licensing of discharges of trade and certain sewage effluents to waters, including inland waters, tidal waters and the sea. The licensing system will not apply to discharges to tidal waters from vessels or marine structures which will be the subject of legislation promoted by the Minister for Transport and Power. The licensing authority in the case of an administrative county, including any urban areas situated therein, will be the county council and in the case of a county borough, the corporation of the county borough. A county council or county borough corporation will be empowered to grant a licence, subject to or without conditions, or to refuse to grant a licence. Licences will be subject to review at intervals of not less than three years or at any time in certain circumstances, such as where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the discharge is a significant threat to public health. Any person will have a right of appeal to the Minister against the grant or refusal of a licence, the terms of a licence or a decision on review of a licence. The Bill includes a section, inserted in the Seanad, whereby the Minister may by order transfer the function of determining appeals or certain classes of appeals under the Bill to An Bord Pleanála.
The licensing system will apply to both existing and new discharges. In the case of existing discharges it is proposed that where application is made before a date to be fixed by order the discharge may continue to be made without a licence until such time as the local authority concerned decides to grant or refuse a licence. This will enable a flexible approach to be adopted in the case of existing discharges. It is only reasonable that some time should be allowed to enable, for example, existing trade discharges to be brought up to the required standard in the same way as local authorities must be allowed reasonable time for the planning and execution of any necessary remedial works in their sewerage systems. While discharges from local authority sewers will be exempted from the licensing provisions of the Bill there is provision enabling the Minister to make regulations for the prescription of quality standards for, among other things, effluents from local authority sewers. The effect of any regulations made in respect of sewage effluent from a local authority sewer or in respect of waters into which such effluent discharges, will be to place a statutory duty on the sanitary authority concerned to take steps as soon as practicable to ensure that the effluent does not contravene the regulations.
The Bill proposes a general prohibition on the entry of polluting matter to waters. The prohibition will not apply to trade or sewage effluents which will be subject to the proposed licensing system, or to the entry of matter from vessels or marine structures to tidal waters or to discharges or deposits which are authorised under various enactments. The position in regard to discharges from agricultural activities is that agricultural waste, unless it is discharged from any apparatus, plant or drainage pipe used for the disposal to waters of such waste, will not be subject to the proposed licensing procedure. Most agricultural liquid waste such as slurry is collected and stored in tanks for subsequent spreading on the land. Any overflow from storage tanks, leaching from silage pits, run-off from farm yards and so on, which is not actually piped to waters would not constitute a licensable effluent under the Bill. Instead, such discharges would be covered by the general prohibition on the discharge of polluting matter to waters. The relevant section however provides that it shall be a good defence to a prosecution for the person charged to show that he has taken all reasonable care to prevent the discharge. The best prospect of preventing pollution from certain agricultural operations, such as slurry spreading, probably lies in the further development of advisory and educational services. The Bill also introduces a system of licensing of discharges of trade effluent or matter, other than domestic sewage or storm water, to sewers on the same general lines as the licensing system for discharges of trade and sewage effluent to waters. In this case the licensing authority will be the sanitary authority in which the sewer concerned is vested.
As regards enforcement, the provisions of the Bill include power for local authorities to take steps to prevent an unauthorised or prohibited entry or discharge, to remedy the effects of such an entry or discharge and to recover the cost of such steps from the person responsible, together with realistic penalties. Special provision is made for action in cases of urgency, such as removal of oil following an oil spillage.
While the Bill requires local authorities to keep a register of abstractions from waters in their functional areas it is not proposed to make water abstractions licensable under the Bill. Control of water abstractions would involve considerations relating to regulation of water resources which would be outside the scope of this Bill. Abstractions of water can however have a significant effect on water quality and for this reason it is proposed to require that they be registered. Local authorities will be obliged to carry out such monitoring and analysis of discharges and receiving waters as may be necessary for the performance of their functions or as may be directed by the Minister. They will also of course have the necessary powers of entry and inspection. It is envisaged that programmes for monitoring of receiving waters will be co-ordinated on a catchment area basis. The local authority monitoring will also be co-ordinated with any monitoring programmes carried out by other bodies, such as An Foras Forbartha.
Another important provision of the Bill is that which enables county and county borough councils to make water quality management plans. It is intended that initially such plans will be made for important catchments only. They will contain objectives for prevention and abatement of pollution of the waters concerned and provide the necessary informational framework for the proper quality management of the waters. They will therefore form the blueprint against which decisions on water quality issues in the catchment or catchments concerned will be taken. Provision is included for the periodic variation or replacement of a plan.
I have already mentioned that the Bill is based largely on recommendations made by an inter-departmental working group. Their Report on Water Pollution came out strongly in favour of control at local level being operated by county and county borough councils. Comments on the working group's recommendations were submitted by a number of interested bodies. While there was general agreement among those bodies in regard to the type of measures required to control water pollution, there was some difference of opinion on the issue of who should administer the new controls. The alternatives to local authority control which were suggested were control by a national body or by regional or river authorities. All these suggestions were carefully considered. The best that can be said for them is that such bodies would approach the problems of water pollution in a singleminded way. It is evident however that such arrangements could give rise to serious conflicts at both policy and practical levels, separated as they would be from the general system for planning and control of development, which has a fundamental relationship to the problem of water pollution. Water pollution is largely a side effect of development and there are very good arguments for integrating the arrangements for dealing with water pollution as closely as possible with the physical planning system. Such an approach requires a system of water pollution control which would be operated by local authorities and co-ordinated with their other functions in relation to housing, planning, sanitary services and amenities. If only because of their responsibility for provision of water supplies and sewerage, the vesting in local authorities of responsibility for water pollution control is essential to facilitate an integrated approach to overall management of water resources.
Another important point is that local authorities are in close touch with the problems and needs of their areas and, being democratically elected, will have regard to local and national concern for the environment. There have been many instances where local authorities have demonstrated both their willingness and ability to deal with water pollution problems. Hitherto they have not had the necessary powers to undertake a comprehensive approach to these problems. With the backing of this new legislation they can be relied on to take even more effective action, where necessary, in the future. The environment and the development process can co-exist in harmony provided the necessary safeguards are taken. The problem is really one of ensuring that there is a proper regard for environmental considerations in the planning and carrying out of development of all kinds and it seems to me that this can be assured only if there is a comprehensive and integrated evaluation of development proposals which is possible only within the local government system.
If the evaluation is fragmented, with separate bodies responsible for particular pollution control or other aspects—and for these aspects only—the whole control system will become more complex and burdensome, new problems of liaison and co-ordination will be introduced and the risks of unnecessary conflict and delay will be greatly increased, to the benefit neither of the environment nor of the economy. I am not convinced that there would be advantages to compensate for these difficulties, or to warrant the costs involved, in setting up and operating new water authorities or river boards at this stage.
There is no uniformity of approach to institutional arrangements for pollution control in other countries. Different systems are used by different countries. The important consideration for us is to adopt a system suited to our particular needs and which will function effectively, having regard to the organisational and planning framework within which it will have to operate.
In present circumstances the arguments in favour of vesting the main control functions, as the Bill proposes, in local authorities are compelling. It is recognised however that circumstances may change and may in the future strengthen the case for different or additional structures either in general or in particular cases. As I shall explain, the Bill includes provision to meet that eventuality as well.
I mentioned earlier that the Water Pollution Advisory Council have indicated their general acceptance of the main provisions of the Bill, subject to certain qualifications. I regard the views of the council, which was set up on an informal basis in advance of this legislation, as highly significant, since it includes a very broad spread of representation from industrial, agricultural, fishery, professional, scientific, conservation and other voluntary interests outside the public sector in addition to the local authority, State and semi-State bodies concerned. The council examined the Bill in detail and had available to it the observations of various interested bodies. It submitted its report on the Bill to the Minister on the 9th July, 1976. Copies of this report were made available in the Oireachtas Library and the Minister arranged to have them issued to the news media on the 4th August, 1976. I would like at this point to place on record my sincere appreciation of the work of the council in examining the Bill. It was not an easy task, particularly when regard is had to the diversity of interests represented.
The council in its views acknowledges that the Bill represents a significant improvement in the legislation at present governing water pollution but suggests that the arrangements for control of pollution should be reviewed after a reasonable period of experience of the operation of the Bill. I have no difficulty in accepting this recommendation.
On the crucial issue of the role of local authorities, the council states that while many of its members have strong reservations on the matter the exercise by local authorities of water pollution control can be accepted, subject to certain amendments— which, I might say, have already been made in the Seanad—and provided adequate arrangements are made for co-ordination on a river catchment basis.
The need for co-ordination was also raised during the debate in the Seanad. I fully agree that adequate arrangements for co-ordination of activities under the Bill within river catchments or suitable groupings of catchments will be essential for the satisfactory operation of the Bill. The Bill recognises this and includes provisions for such co-ordinated action to be secured by consultation and co-operation, assisted where necessary by the preparation of water quality management plans for catchments. There is of course also need for involvement of various interests, other than local authorities, concerned at local level. These include fishery, agricultural, health and other interests. In this connection I should mention that towards the end of last year it was suggested to local authorities that they should examine possibilities for co-ordination of action with such other interests within catchments or groups of cachments. I am glad to say that this suggestion has resulted in the setting up of informal co-ordinating committees for catchments in a number of areas.
The question of pollution caused by local authority sewerage schemes was raised during the Seanad debate and was also the subject of comment by the Water Pollution Advisory Council. My Department are constantly impressing on local authorities the need for proper maintenance of their schemes, including treatment works, and I am confident that any necessary improvements will be made. But the main reason for overloaded or inadequate sewerage is due to under-investment in the past because of the impact of capital limitations on the sanitary services programmes of local authorities. Accordingly, they found it necessary to concentrate on provision of the most urgent drainage facilities for housing and industrial development. I should say that for many years now all new sewage disposal systems have been designed so as to ensure that the effluent can be disposed of to receiving waters without causing pollution. Exceptionally, where the circumstances so warrant, the design of the treatment works is such that should it be established that additional treatment by way of phosphate removal is necessary to ensure an acceptable effluent, such additional treatment can be provided at minimum cost. But the backlog to be tackled and the needs of our expanding population are such that, despite the greatly increased capital allocations for sanitary services in recent years, it will necessarily take some time to rectify the deficiencies of the past.
A detailed survey of existing local authority sewerage systems was carried out in 1971-72 and the position in individual areas is kept under constant review. Remedial works have already been carried out to many older systems which were shown to be giving rise to pollution problems. The annual ongoing sanitary services programmes include a significant number of schemes designed to provide or improve arrangements for the final disposal of sewage so as to ensure that such disposal will not seriously affect the environment. It is intended that this policy will be continued until all locations at which serious pollution problems may be occurring, or where there is a danger that they might occur, are dealt with. The number of schemes to be undertaken at any particular time must, of course, be decided on in the light of the amount of capital available for the programmes as a whole and of competing demands on that capital. The total amount of capital provided in 1976 for the sanitary services programmes is £25 million.
It is envisaged that the Minister's role under the Bill will be mainly a supervisory one and that the implementation of national policy on water pollution control will be secured mainly through the issue of general advice and guidance to the local control authorities. The Minister will, however, have important powers enabling him to take effective action if this should become necessary, for example, by requiring alteration of water quality management plans or by establishing special water quality control authorities. He will also be empowered to prescribe quality standards and to require local authorities and boards of conservators to consult with each other and with other bodies as necessary in relation to the performance of functions under the Bill.
In the discharge of his functions and responsibilities the Minister will, of course, have the advice of the Water Pollution Advisory Council. The Bill requires him to consult the council in regard to certain of his functions, that is, the establishment of water quality control authorities, the prescription of quality standards for waters, trade and sewage effluents and the making of regulations regarding the use of certain vessels in specified waters.
I should also mention that the Minister has set up a technical expert group to advise him on questions of water quality and effluent standards. This is a most important group and I am glad to say that they have already commenced work on the preparation of guidelines for local authorities.
I have already referred to the need for a co-ordinated approach on a catchment basis to overall quality management of water resources by the various interests involved. Apart from the need for co-ordination between local authorities concerned with the same catchment there are, as I have already mentioned, other bodies with a special interest in water pollution. Chief among these are the boards of conservators. Under the Bill the Minister will be empowered, following consultation with the Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries and Industry and Commerce, to require local authorities and boards of conservators to consult one another or other interested parties in relation to performance of any function under the Bill. Due account is also taken in the Bill of the need to facilitate and assist the boards in the protection of fisheries. In addition to the consultative provision the boards will be empowered to take prosecutions and appropriate enforcement action to protect the fishery interest.
The Bill will repeal the Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts, 1876, and 1893 and also the licensing and related provisions of the Fisheries Acts, that is, sections 171 and 172 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, which are being replaced by the control provisions of the Bill.
Before concluding I would like to mention that my Department have been looking into the practical aspects of implementation of the Bill when it becomes law. These include water resource assessment, monitoring, laboratory facilities and various aspects of co-ordination. It is desirable that local consideration of the practical aspects be initiated as soon as possible and I hope to be in a position to issue a discussion document on the subject to local authorities shortly.
In conclusion, I wish to say that the provisions of the Bill are aimed at providing a reasonably flexible statutory basis for control of water pollution backed up by realistic penalties and effective enforcement procedures. A number of amendments have been made in the Bill resulting from debate during Committee Stage in the Seanad. I will be prepared to consider any suggestions for further improvements which Deputies may put forward.
I should point out also that this particular piece of legislation has important international and EEC implications. It will facilitate compliance with the Paris Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land Based Sources, to which this country is a contracting party, as well as obligations arising under the EEC Programme of Action on the Environment. To date, a number of important proposals relating to water quality have been processed by the Community under this programme. These include directives on the quality of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water, on the quality of bathing waters and on the discharge of dangerous substances into the aquatic environment. There is also the Community's recommendation on the "polluter pays principle", which outlines a common approach to the application of the principle in pollution control. The essence of the principle is that the person responsible for pollution should bear the cost involved in eliminating it or in reducing it to an acceptable level. The principle is reflected in the Bill.
I commend the Bill to the House.
