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.