Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Oct 1976

Vol. 293 No. 4

Local Government (Water Pollution) Bill, 1976 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. L. Belton

Last week, when dealing with this Bill, I spoke from my own personal interest in this matter and of my efforts to get a measure such as this introduced. I come now to consideration of the position with regard to pollution. We have an abundant supply of water in our rivers and lakes and around our coast. While we are not entirely free from pollution, not nearly as free, indeed, as we would wish to be, we are fortunate in that we are relatively freer than most other countries. However, this is the opportune time to tackle any problems that may exist and we should waste no time in using all our resources to tackle them now. It is true that prevention is better than cure and our efforts should be directed now towards preventing pollution instead of waiting until we have to cure it. Should pollution become a major problem we might be unable physically or financially to solve it.

Waters used for domestic, recreational and industrial purposes should be free from pollution. It is vitally important that rivers and lakes should be safeguarded from pollution because fishing is a major tourist attraction and our tourist industry will be jeopardised if this important amenity is adversely affected. There was a time when tourists came here in large numbers because drink and cigarettes were cheap. That is no longer the position and one of the major attractions now from the point of view of the tourist is our fishing amenity. We should spare no effort in making it clear to those interested that our waters are free of pollution and they can enjoy ample sport if they come here. At the moment people on the Continent are a little confused about the position as between North and South. We have had our share of trouble down here but we should make it clear to potential tourists that, as well as our waters being free of pollution, we are also free more or less of the kind of situation that exists elsewhere in the island.

In the Seanad the Parliamentary Secretary gave figures from a survey carried out by An Foras Forbartha. According to that survey 121 rivers were examined, covering a total distance of 3,000 kilometres. Of that number 7 per cent were bad and 10 per cent were doubtful. How bad, I wonder, were the 7 per cent? I am sure some were worse than others. I do not know if the Liffey and the Tolka were surveyed. I would hope none was as bad as the Tolka and the Liffey. I understand the survey also showed that despite urban housing development there had been no serious deterioration with regard to pollution. That, of course, is due to improved sanitary services and better planning. Better planning is, I suppose, attributable to the 1963 Planning Act. There were certain curbs on farming activities from the point of view of the siting of silage pits. These could be a serious form of pollution. There are regulations now prohibiting the siting of those pits anywhere in the vicinity of rivers in case of any seepage into rivers. There are also fairly strict regulations with regard to the keeping of pigs and in this connection, of course, pig slurry is regarded as a major form of pollution. Regulations have now curtailed this problem, if they have not eliminated it fully.

In industry, present-day planning provisions seem to be adequate to ensure that there is proper disposal of waste emanating from factories. It would appear, therefore, that modern works in connection with industry or the provision of new housing do not present a very serious threat. In the main, the threat would come from older industries or older urban housing. There are many small family industries sited in proximity to rivers and they may not have adequate provision made for disposal of industrial waste or sewage. However, it would be wrong to compel the owners of such industries to put their house in order immediately because in many cases it might mean such a prohibitive cost that there would be loss of employment and some firms might even be forced out of business. As well as giving them some time to rectify matters, I would advocate that the Government or the local authorities should provide some form of grant or loan, or possibly some form of tax incentive, in order to assist them and thereby encourage rather than compel them. Compulsion should be a last resort and should be used only when appeals for voluntary effort have failed.

There is also a problem in connection with a number of our towns from which raw sewage flows into rivers. This compares very badly with the situation in the North where in many cases there are treatment plants. Down here treatment plants exist only in a few places.

We are all glad to see our industrial arm thriving but we should strike a note of warning so that we will not be caught up as other countries were by the industrial revolution, allowing pollution to develop without adequate provision being made for its control. It is very necessary, if we are to keep pace with present day world trade, to develop and expand industrially but this should not mean a deterioration of our environment. We must take certain safeguards and make adequate provision for the disposal of domestic and industrial sewage.

On the question of who the enforcement agency should be, different opinions have been expressed. Some people have said it should be left to the boards of fishery conservators who naturally have a great interest in the preservation of fish life in our rivers. I think the local authorities are the proper people to have control, to be responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill. Some people may say local authorities are the worst offenders, and unfortunately in some cases it is quite true. It has been said that one local authority would be reluctant to prosecute another, or that certain difficulties could arise where, as in Dublin, you had adjoining local authorities under the control of one person. In Dublin the manager also is manager of County Dublin and Dún Laoghaire. A similar position exists in Longford-Westmeath, Carlow-Kilkenny and in the Parliamentary Secretary's own constituency of Laois-Offaly.

In the past, local authorities may have been guilty of causing pollution but they are now very anxious to put things right by providing new sewerage systems and improving old ones. For instance, in Dublin £20 million has been spent on works completed or in the course of completion. Local authorities are responsible for water supplies and they and sewage disposal are very closely linked with planning which is the responsibility of local authorities. Even if one local authority are in any way reluctant to prosecute another local authority, an outside authority have power under the Bill to prosecute if there is any interference with their water supply.

There is provision in the Bill for consultation with outside interests and in this connection boards of conservators play an important role. There is provision for a water pollution advisory board to represent all interests concerned. I hope this is not to be a name only. I hope this consultation will be real.

I should like to refer to other provisions in the Bill. First of all there is the definitions section and then sections 4 to 8 deal with the granting of licences and the conditions appertaining to them. There is provision for appeals if licences are not granted. It also allows for consultations, which is very important, every three years or more frequently if the occasion arises or if there is serious danger to health. Section 14 refers to the storage of any matter that may be regarded to be a serious danger. Section 17 deals with accidental spillage and lays down the duty of anybody guilty of an accidental spillage to notify the local authority immediately.

Section 21 might be slightly ahead of its time as it makes appeals to An Bord Pleanála, which we all know will be the Planning Appeals Board when the new Bill takes the power of appeal from the Minister. Section 23 allows for consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or any other Minister, between the board of conservators and the local authority or the sanitary authority in each area.

The Bill covers most aspects in relation to pollution. I urge the Minister, in relation to its enforcement, to appeal for the goodwill of all sections of the community. I ask him to look for a voluntary effort rather than a compulsory one. The penalties laid down for non-compliance with the Bill are fairly stiff. This deterrent of fines should only be used when all other efforts have been made and when there seems to be no result from them. Our duty as citizens is to protect the environment and to do everything in our power to improve it and thus ensure that future generations will appreciate our efforts in this direction.

As a representative of a Dublin constituency where this matter is probably of more importance than it is in rural Ireland because housing density and industries are sited in urban areas, I would like to compliment the Minister for having brought in this Bill and shown his concern for the people and his determination to see that they have better standards of living. He has already done this with regard to housing and now he has taken the matter a step further to ensure that if people have proper housing to live in they will also have a proper environment to enjoy.

Mr. Leonard

The proposals in the Bill are based on the recommendations of an inter-departmental working group published in 1973. When one takes into account the various happenings since, the Bantry Bay spillage, the progress in the search for offshore oil and gas, the various reports of An Foras Forbartha and the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and new EEC regulations, it shows how inadequate this Bill is. However, we have been promised further legislation. It is a pity that this could not have been incorporated in this Bill so that we could have dealt with pollution generally.

During the past few years in reply to questions it has been stated that other countries have a higher level of pollution than we have. Many of those countries are highly industrialised so it is reasonable to expect that they would have a higher level of pollution. We are not heavily industrialised, unfortunately for us at the present time, so we are well placed to benefit from clean air.

One of the reasons for fighting pollution is to preserve the environment for our people. Up to the last few years, when we were relatively free of pollution, we were able to attract tourists. Much has been said by previous speakers about having a Minister in charge of the environment. Our party have realised this and we appointed Deputy O'Leary as spokesman on the environment. It can be seen by his contribution on this Bill that he has taken his job seriously. Mention is made in the Bill of the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the Minister for the Public Service, but only once is the Minister responsible for tourism mentioned, that is in relation to the control of river and lake vessels with sanitary appliances which discharge into the waters. When one looks through the Bill one sees that the tourist aspect did not rate very high with the Minister and his colleagues. They should have taken the lead from Fianna Fáil and appointed a Minister in charge of the environment.

A report issued on 9th April last showed that there is pollution in 17 counties. We have not the same problems in my county from an urban point of view, such as those mentioned by Deputy Belton in relation to Dublin, but we are very concerned from the tourist aspect because the lakes and rivers in the Cavan, Monaghan, Westmeath and Meath area are a great attraction for fishermen. We are very much afraid that that attraction will disappear. The Irish Press on 9th April reported that evidence of pollution was found in 63 stretches of water in 17 counties last year according to the annual report of the Inland Fisheries Trust, which announced that it had commenced legal action against pollutors in some cases. The sources of pollution were mainly agricultural effluent, industrial waste and urban and domestic sewage. The report also stated that for the first time in our experience a lake at Carrickmacross was completely de-oxygenated by pollution and that there had been a massive kill of coarse fish, many of specimen size, in the fishery. The report also referred to pollution in Lough Conn and Lough Corrib. One must realise the enormity of pollution in those areas and the real damage that this could do to our environment and to our tourist industry.

One of the causes of river pollution in many areas is the lack of a proper arterial drainage system. Where there is no proper drainage system and where rivers get overgrown water remains stagnant and if arterial drainage could be speeded up it would help to a great extent to remove this type of pollution from rivers. During the dry spell last year a lot of fish were killed and considering the amount of money that has been spent by the Fisheries Trust and by local angling organisations that was a great pity. Pollution will not alone have to be tackled at national level but schools should bring to the attention of young people the danger of pollution to our environment generally. These dangers cannot be brought home forcibly enough.

Pollution arising from intensive farm enterprises has been mentioned. Much pollution in the last decade has arisen from intensive farm enterprises. Lakes and rivers in my area have been severely polluted by them. Pig slurry has been mentioned as one of the acute forms of pollution and recently a plant was opened in County Cavan to process pig slurry on the lines established by research workers of an Foras Talúntais. If that project is as successful as anticipated it will constitute a breakthrough in dealing with at least one problem created by the use of intensive farming methods. Much work has been done to date in this field by An Foras Talúntais. What we want now is a comprehensive measure to deal with all types of pollution. A number of countries on the Continent use fines to penalise pollutors and to finance measures necessary to combat pollution. That this method is being used by a number of European countries shows how seriously they are concerned about pollution. I am not suggesting that this would be one of the best methods of tackling pollution here. The Minister should have included the local authorities sewerage system in the licensing provision, because up to now urban councils and local authorities have been a large source of pollution. Until the last few years pollution was expected in heavily industrialised areas but the countryside was pollution free. When campaigning in a recent by-election in County Mayo, where one would think the environment and the streams would be pollution free, I called to a house where pollution was a problem and where even the water supply was affected. A few years ago when a book entitled The Silent Spring was published many people did not take seriously the dreadful picture painted in that book of what uncontrolled pollution could do to a country. People have since come to realise the risk of seriously damaging the environment. There was damage to the lakes of Killarney last year and also damage to the lakes of Monaghan and Cavan. This brings home to people the real seriousness of the situation. The threat of pollution can do serious damage to the country from the tourism and the environment point of view. A comprehensive scheme to combat pollution should be introduced and schools should bring home to pupils the seriousness of the threat before it is too late, because time is not on our side in dealing with pollution.

Mr. Hussey

We on this side of the House are very concerned about the protection of the environment. Our spokesman on the environment, Deputy O'Leary, and our spokesman on local government, Deputy Faulkner, have made a very deep study of this Bill and have made certain recommendations which I hope the Minister will be able to include in the Bill before it finally becomes law. I congratulate them on the efforts they have made to make this a better Bill and to ensure that every effort is made to protect our environment. So far we are fortunate in that our environment remains more or less unspoilt, but while there is still time we must endeavour to avoid the mistakes that are now obvious in other countries in this sphere.

The Bill before us proposes to give to county councils and county borough councils a status of anti-pollution authorities. At first glance this looks like a perverse proposition. Local authorities are oriented towards development rather than towards conservation so that the control of pollution will be a new concept for them and one in respect of which they will require some time to adjust. Worse still they are sewage authorities and as such, through no fault of their own, they are offenders often against water-quality standards. One can visualise the possibilities of their being laughed out of court in the event of their prosecuting the public without putting their own house in order first. At best this situation could result in an earlier solution to sewage pollution problems than might otherwise be the case, but at worst it could undermine the otherwise praiseworthy efforts to bring under effective control the whole question of water pollution. Perhaps we should hope for the best. It should be helpful that local authorities as planning bodies will be obliged to look hard at the pollution content of new projects for which planning approval is sought. On the credit side, and unquestionably so, is the fact that the new proposals constitute a serious and a comprehensive effort to tackle the problems associated with the preserva tion of the environment.

The Bill proposes a prohibition or, the discharge into waters of noxious matter. There is provision for a maxi mum penalty on summary convictior of £250 or six months' imprisonment or both and of £100 a day for a continuing offence, while there is provision for a fine of £5,000 for conviction on indictment or for two years' imprisonment or both. These penalties are rather severe but if the Bill is to have the desired effect such harsh penalties are necessary. Effluence from private sewers and trade effluence to waterways and public sewers are excluded from the prohibition but must be licensed individually. They will be subject to inspection and control and breaches of the regulations will carry the same penalties as those to which I have referred. Sewage effluence from local authority sewers and treatment plants are exempted both from prohibition and from licence but will be dealt with under ministerial regulations which will set quality standards. These regulations will place on each sanitary authority a statutory duty to take steps as soon as practicable to ensure conformity.

Other provisions include exemption of arterial drainage, turf development and electricity-generating activities.

There is provision to give power to the Minister to exempt other specific effluents from licensing, to prescribe water-quality standards and to require local authorities to provide water-quality management plans. There is provision, too, for the making of arrangements for access to sampling and monitoring of water and for appeals from local authority decisions. Local authorities may be required to co-operate with one another and, should it be necessary, one or more control authority may be set up to assume the anti-pollution functions of groups of local authorities.

The Bill is a vast improvement on what has been the position up to now. The prohibition and licensing provisions comply with what has been sought by anglers and conservationists. We are glad that loopholes in present legislation in relation to powers of inspection and sampling are being plugged. If the courts take the cue and impose maximum fines, the aims of the Bill should be achieved. A very important feature of the Bill is that the public and the fisheries authorities— these include both conservationists and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheres—are given more or less the same powers to inspect, sample and prosecute as are being given to local authorities.

The Bill is based on a report of the inter-departmental committee on water pollution, a committee set up by the Minister. Subject to one important reservation, the Bill goes much of the way towards meeting the criticisms of a report submitted to the Minister by the Inland Fisheries Commission, the Angling Federation and the anti-pollution groups. These groups had reservations about entrusting anti-pollution functions to local authorities. Perhaps it is not surprising that the most notable weakness of the Bill is in relation to effluent from local authority sewers and sewage treatment plants. The Bill provides that such matters be dealt with as soon as practicable, but there is no promise of financial assistance to local authorities for the provision of sewage treatment plants. Neither are there set any time limits or any penalties in respect of this form of pollution. Admittedly it is unfair to look to the Bill for this type of provision. However, the fact remains that in the past local authorities on the whole have been unable to impose on the rates the heavy cost of sewage treatment. The Minister has not found it possible to assist them from central funds.

If this situation is allowed to continue the provisions of the Bill are unlikely to achieve anything spectacular under this heading. If this were to happen, the position of the local authorities vis-à-vis other polluters would be weakened and, as anti-pollution authorities, they would suffer a loss of credibility. It is presumably a question of priorities in the allocation of funds. In these stringent times one can sympathise with the Minister, but the plain truth is, if he cannot produce an acceptable plan and timetable for financing this treatment of public sewage effluent wherever it is necessary, his proposal will be seriously damaged.

I appeal to the Minister to ensure that sufficient finance is made available to local authorities to carry out the proposals outlined in this Bill. I am quite sure local authorities are fully capable of doing this work if they get sufficient finance. Down through the years, they have been blamed on many occasions for pollution of one kind or another. Pollution by local authorities was caused by the fact that they did not get sufficient finance to correct a situation which was developing because new industries were being created, new ventures were being sought, and new housing schemes were being built, all of which added to the pollution problems of the local authorities. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, who has been a member of a local authority for a long number of years, will refer this very important matter to his Minister and press for sufficient finance for local authorities to carry out this type of work.

Although the remainder of the Bill is likely to attract more approval than criticism, there are a few areas in which, I hope, helpful suggestions can be put forward. It is a pity the opportunity was not taken either in this Bill or the Planning and Development Act to bring other schemes within the ambit of the Planning Acts. We all know that pollution from new ventures in factory farming, which is already a serious problem, seems likely to increase in future years at an accelerating pace. It seems wrong that control is not introduced at the planning stage. It would be better and less costly to deal with the kernel of the matter at that stage rather than creating a problem and then trying to enforce the law when certain ventures have been carried out. We know that under the EEC directives, and with the advent of the development farmers, a large number of those ventures will be planned throughout the country. We know, too, that there can be considerable pollution from ventures of that nature. It would be better for the local authorities and the people involved to put things right at an early stage. In that way they would not contribute to the pollution problem later on.

In limited stretches of waterways within the boundaries of county councils or county borough councils, there are likely to be problems in maintaining an acceptable standard when the upstream feeding waters are extensive and lie entirely outside the authority's control. Where a number of authorities are involved, the problems will multiply. To meet this situation, in this Bill the Minister has included what the explanatory memorandum describes as reserved powers enabling him to appoint a joint water quality control authority in which two or more local authorities would combine and which would take over from the individual local authorities their anti-pollution functions. One hopes that the Minister may be persuaded to identify the areas in which this is most likely to occur and to set up, at the initial stage, such a single body to look after them. Given the paramount value of managing waterways on a river catchment basis, such a body might in time be expanded to take in additional areas.

In relation to penalties, I wonder if the Scandinavian system was considered. It provides that when a limited company is convicted not only is the company, as such, penalised but the chairman and the chief executive are liable individually to fines and even to imprisonment. In inflationary times it might be helpful if the Minister had power to alter the level of fines in line with changes in the value of money. These are ideas which might be considered. Apparently they are acceptable in other countries. They could be looked into here as well.

The Minister's power to exempt specific effluents from licensing is exercisable after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Consent would be more appropriate than consultation and more in line with the fact that the power of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to license effluents in his own right under the Fisheries Act is being repealed. In section 10, power is taken to require an offender to mitigate and remedy any effects of his infringement. I wonder does this include the replacement of damaged fish stocks and fish food, or merely the restoration of the water to an acceptable standard of purity.

We have, I understand, 342 miles of beach. When we take account of our bathing areas, which I understand are about 20 per cent of the total beach area, we are left with about 80 miles of beach. As we are dependent to a great extent on our income from tourism, and on tourism to help our balance of payments, we should realise the importance of preserving our beaches and ensuring that no pollution is allowed on any of those beaches. It is really important that we should make every effort to ensure that our beaches remain unpolluted.

As I see it, the trouble is that too many Departments are responsible for the environment. I understand about 13 agencies are responsible for the environment. One could well visualise a situation where lines could be crossed and where one Department or one agency would infringe on the rights of another and in the long term it would be our environment that would suffer. It would be far better if we had one Department totally responsible for the environment. When we see what happens in other countries and how pollution has ruined things there, we should spare no effort to ensure that we fulfil our responsibility and preserve for future generations the environment of our country.

In my own county of Galway we have one of the finest lakes in the country, Lough Corrib, and fears have been expressed from time to time about the pollution problem in Lough Corrib. This is something that we dread in County Galway where the many fine lakes and rivers are a source of income for the county and a great attraction to the tourists. It would be very unfortunate if any pollution took place in those areas. We should take every effort to preserve out waterways intact and to ensure that tourists are attracted by fishing exhibitions in our lakes and rivers.

The final verdict on the Bill must be that it deserves a welcome. It makes, I believe, an honest effort to tackle the pressing problem of pollution. There are ways in which it can be improved before it becomes law. Above all there must be commitment of funds for the work needed, especially for treatment where required of local authority sewage effluence. I urge on the Government that it is absolutely necessary that funds be provided for this purpose. In County Galway last year offices were created by the county council for the appointment of personnel to monitor pollution in the county. The Minister's sanction to the creation of these offices is still awaited and I hope that the Minister will not delay that sanction. Galway County Council have provided a sum in the estimates for this purpose and this shows that they are in earnest in their determination to co-operate with the central authorities in efforts to stamp out pollution in the county.

Mr. Kitt

I welcome the object of this Bill to make more effective arrangements for the control of water pollution with a view to ensuring that the water resources are maintained to a satisfactory standard consistent with various beneficial uses. I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary and our spokesman on the environment, Deputy J. O'Leary, for the very helpful opening remarks. It is a reflection of the concern of this side of the House that we have a spokesman on the environment. The idea in this Bill is to take the necessary safeguards so that the environment and the development process can co-exist in harmony. In order to do this we have to try to achieve a balance between development and the protection of the environment.

However, it is worth pointing out that there is a lot of inevitable pollution especially when development takes place. Leaving development out of it, when rain falls on our bogland, as the Parliamentary Secretary is very well aware, this contributes to peat silt being deposited in our lakes and rivers. This is inevitable. Every person born into this world is a polluter. That might not be a pleasant thought, but it is true.

What we are talking about in this Bill is protection against serious pollution that can arise under a number of headings. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary referred in his opening remarks to the need for the co-operation of the public, because we cannot legislate for this and it is vital if we are to make any serious attempt to control serious pollution. For too long we have concentrated on the negative side of this problem, and maybe too much attention has been given to the penalties which are severe but necessary. It is important that we have the co-operation of the public. On a number of Bills which we discussed during the year this point was made, particularly in regard to the Tourist Bill and the Wildlife Bill, which we are discussing in Committee at the moment. We also need co-operation between the various Departments dealing with pollution. There are too many Departments dealing with the problem at the moment, and I understand there are 13 agencies which could be called upon. There is no overall responsibility with one Department. I hope the Department of Local Government, as the major Department in this area, through the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister, will say that the buck stops with them and that they will be dealing with this problem.

I mentioned earlier the inevitable pollution that takes place when peat silt is deposited in lakes and rivers. This is a very serious problem in my constituency, and it is no wonder that the fishermen who fish in the Shannon and Lough Corrib are very concerned that steps will be taken to remedy this problem. I understood that there was before the EEC a five-year plan to provide money for research to remedy the effects of peat silt being lodged in our waters. I would like to know if money has been made available to any organisation or individual to found a research project on this very serious matter. I have correspondence from the Galway Corrib fishermen who want an undertaking that the Minister will make funds available to enable all public sewage to be suitably treated within a stated number of years. This is also to include tertiary treatment of effluence on waters. I impress on the Parliamentary Secretary that, if this undertaking was given, it might stop the various comments about local authorities being the most serious offenders as regards pollution.

Of course every county has a problem in the disposal of sewage. Galway County Council have not the money to provide schemes for the many towns and villages in the county. If realistic grants were given to organisers of group sewerage schemes they would be able to tackle this problem. The county council cannot provide the money themselves. The Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the work of the group water schemes. We have always said we need industries in the west and we are not being hypocritical in saying so now. We consider that State bodies such as Bord na Móna and the ESB could do more to ease the minds of people with regard to the safeguards they could provide to prevent serious pollution. We welcome the development near Ballyforan where Bord na Móna and the ESB plan to develop a large amount of bogland. We hope that development will proceed and that they will adopt the safeguards I have mentioned.

I wish to support Deputy Hussey in the point he made regarding the pollution officers Galway County Council provided for in their estimates last year. Four officers were to be appointed, money was provided in the estimates but, as yet, sanction has not been received from the Minister for Local Government. Four officers to deal with pollution in County Galway would be only a drop in the ocean but at least they would be able to concentrate on areas where there is a serious problem, particularly the pollution in Lough Corrib and perhaps the pollution in the Shannon. I hope those officers will be appointed very quickly.

It is a pity that sufficient information is not available as yet regarding the causes of pollution in Lough Corrib. The Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the ill-feeling that can exist in an area where that information is not available. If we had more information about the causes of pollution and, more important, information with regard to the remedies we would be doing a good service.

I have had considerable correspondence regarding the pollution caused by local authorities. There are arguments for and against this. I was glad to see in the opening statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that he had given much thought to this question. He pointed out that water pollution is largely a side-effect of development and that there are good arguments for integrating the arrangements for dealing with water pollution as closely as possible with the physical planning system.

This is an important point because local authorities have functions in relation to housing, planning and sanitary services. Since the local authorities are engaged in these areas they could develop their plans in such a way that due regard and high priority be given to the dangers of pollution. Consultation between the various local authorities regarding catchment areas or river basins is another aspect. The Shannon flows through 13 counties and it is obvious that consultation is necessary between the various local authorities.

The only criticism I have is that this Bill does not go far enough. It is limited to pollution of inland and tidal waters. I should like a Bill to include matters such as the collection and disposal of trade and domestic refuse, the fixing of acceptable levels of noise and heating in industry or in places of work, the dumping of waste and litter, the cleaning of our beaches and the disposal and recycling of all forms of waste. The past summer was very dry and it showed us how serious pollution can be and how inadequately prepared we were to deal with the matter. In welcoming the Bill I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind that there are other areas that need immediate attention.

Mr. Moore

I join with other speakers in welcoming the Bill. The tone of the speeches made by Deputies show the concern felt by the people generally with regard to the menace of pollution. We know that the word "pollution" has a highly emotive connotation and that the opinions given on this problem are subjective. If one places a high value on amenities and on the conservation of the environment naturally one is most concerned about the problem but if a society does not care too much for the environment anything goes. It is impossible to lay down a criterion with regard to pollution. It is a relative matter, depending on the standards we set out to attain and to maintain or on the lack of such standards.

We welcome the Bill because it gives an opportunity of discussing this important matter but we must do it without being emotional, recognising that nature itself can pollute. If a lake or river is polluted it may not always be caused by man, it can be caused by nature itself. However, we must accept that most pollution is manmade and, therefore, it can be controlled by man.

I have quoted from a report issued recently and entitled "A Survey of the Environmental Conditions in the Liffey Estuary and Dublin Bay". It was brought out at the request of Dublin Corporation, Dublin Port and Docks Board and the ESB. The actual work was carried out by Mr. Crisp of the University of North Wales, assisted by students of UCD and by other officials in the city. They have issued a very fine report and while they do not offer us all the solutions to the pollution problem—I do not think they could— I think the time has come when we can make some advances in checking pollution.

I welcome the various measures contained in the Bill but I am rather sceptical that it will be effective. I served for some years on a board of fishery conservators. I remember at one time a large industrial concern admitted to the accidental discharge of effluent into a river and the effluent had a very high acid content. Further down that river hundreds if not thousands of fish were poisoned. We found it impossible to get a conviction as we could not prove that the effluent which came from the factory actually poisoned the fish. In that case the factory management were very responsible people and did not try to deny that somebody had boobed and discharged the effluent into the river before it was treated. However, we had to end up by saying to the management: "Be more careful in future".

In these days respect for the law has not a very high place in our priorities. Therefore, the real test of the Bill will be, despite the good intentions of the draftsmen and of the movers, how effective a measure it will be in controlling and limiting the growth of further pollution. The Parliamentary Secretary may well say that cannot be answered yet, which I appreciate. However, we in this House have a duty to examine the Bill in detail and see how we can make it a better and more effective measure. People all over the country, whether in the city or in the smallest village, are aware of the menace of pollution.

We in Ireland have a glorious opportunity to ensure that our atmosphere does not become as polluted as the atmosphere in more industrialised countries. We cannot be too insular about this whole matter, because there are outside polluting influences on our seas and rivers. While in Denmark a short while ago I spoke to a person there about pollution. The Baltic sea was badly polluted and they blamed it on a discharge from the sewers in Leningrad, which is quite a distance away. We are very close to Britain. At one point a mere 64 miles divides the two countries. I look forward to the day when, having put our home situation in order by the effective application of legislation, we will join with the people of the surrounding islands in the fight against pollution, when we will co-operate with the authorities in the United Kingdom and even as far away as Iceland. Under the various charters of the United Nations and the Council of Europe, we should initiate a great drive to curb pollution, to measure it by the very high standards obtaining in Ireland or in other countries. If this is not done the future of our society could be very bleak indeed. If we achieved such co-operation internationally, we could save the tremendous amount of money now spent on our health services and also be able to add to the sum of human happiness by allowing people to live in an unpolluted atmosphere. Our rivers and beaches would be clean, the very fields where we produce our food would be clean and, on another plain, our city streets would be clean.

We should regard people who deliberately pollute the atmosphere of our city streets as being undesirable members of our society. While we do not call for any Draconian measures against them, I believe the key to the whole matter is education, whether in the school or in the home. If we get across the message that pollution is something that must be corrected, we will then find that co-operation will come from the people.

I am not suggesting either that we should take the softly, softly approach. Our approach must be an intelligent one so that our legislation will have the greatest effect. We cannot afford a police force that can patrol every river and every beach and every mile of our streets. What we can afford is education in civics to make sure that we will have good citizens. The mark of a good citizen is that he cares about the environment in which he and his fellow citizens must live.

Debate adjourned.