Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Dec 1989

Vol. 394 No. 3

Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Bill, 1989 [ Seanad ]: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Roche

Like other Deputies on this side of the House, I feel that if Deputy Dukes is not prepared to be specific and put up, then he should do the other. The sort of exchanges that take place here do not matter greatly but I — and the majority of Members — are delighted to have Deputy Currie in the House.

Earlier this morning I welcomed the legislation and I suggested that the proposals in the Bill allowing for the Government commitment to historically high levels of investment as outlined in the National Development Plan, 1989-1993 marked a very important step forward in the protection of our environment. I also made the point that while legislation such as this was welcome — as well as the Government's investment proposals — the real guardians of our environment are the people themselves. I suggested to the Minister and the Minister of State that they might consider the idea of a continuous education programme urging the public to mobilise as watchdogs of environmental standards.

Before we broke for Question Time I was on the point of suggesting that the increase in the powers of local authorities with regard to trade effluent is a noteworthy provision in the Bill. I also said that the provisions in sections 5 to 13 were particularly welcome because they allow local authorities to undertake on the spot reviews rather than depending on the present three year review system which requires the local authorities to review at specific points and, therefore, allow polluters to ease up on their standards in the first two years.

I also suggested that the Bill's provisions in relation to the fisheries boards are very welcome. For a long time the boards operated under something of a shadow. The Bill recognises the major contribution made by the fisheries boards over the years and to their control of water pollution, especially in the area of fisheries protection. The boards had a constant anxiety that the Water Pollution Act, 1977, would take away the legislative control they had at their disposal under the fisheries consolidation Act. This would have been a major tragedy in the areas of fisheries protection and in the prevention of pollution generally. For that reason I specifically welcome the fact that in this legislation not only will sections 17 (1) and 17 (2) of the fisheries consolidation Act be reaffirmed, but that they will be substantially extended in the matter of a penalty. The increase in fines is welcome but the extension of the law which will allow the board not only to take steps against a polluter and to impose a fine, but will allow the board to redress the damage done by pollution and restore costs to the board is particularly welcome.

In the past the situation was ludicrous in that the boards could certainly take action in the courts against the polluter, especially in relation to a habitual polluter, and could impose fines but the fines — particularly in the context of major industries — were regarded as a minor irritant. An example of the kind of offence which arose in the past and which, I hope, will be addressed by the Bill was the disgraceful case of continuous pollution of the Feale, one of the finest salmon rivers in Europe. The polluter was a major and wealthy enterprise and simply paid the fines as they arose. They represented a minuscule imposition on the company's resources and they simply returned to their bad ways.

The Bill will provide that this can no longer be the case. It will not be possible for polluters simply to pay fines, dismiss all the complaints and walk away from the problem. The polluters will now have to pay the long-term costs of their activities. In the case of a company such as the one which destroyed the River Feale in Kerry they will have to pay the cost of restocking the river and the other associated costs which had been borne previously by the fisheries boards. This is very welcome because the fisheries boards have not been adequately financed in the past. The powers of the board in this area are a very positive aspect of the Bill.

Another aspect of the Bill, in the context of fisheries protection, is important. Because the Bill will allow private individuals and groups who have a genuine interest to take action where a polluter is destroying an angling river, angling clubs will also be empowered to do something more than simply standing on the bank and wringing their hands in frustration when the river in which they have invested a great deal of resources has been destroyed.

The Dargle River, Bray, is a fabulous one and many people have put an awful lot of effort into it. Pollution is not the problem there, it is simply law breaking and poaching. It is sad to see the destruction that goes on but, at least in the context of polluting a river, the Bill, when enacted, will provide a club, in addition to the fisheries boards, with powers to deal with the problem, which is very welcome.

As I said at the outset, I commend not only the Minister and the Minister of State for introducing the Bill but particularly the former Minister, Deputy Daly, for his efforts in regard to the legislation. I will conclude soon because I know many other Members are champing at the bit to make their own contributions.

There is a final positive aspect to this Bill with regard to fisheries protection and the role of the fisheries boards. I think it was Juvenal, the Roman poet, who asked the question: who guards the guardian? I welcome the expanded role of the fisheries board under this Bill so far as pollution by local authorities is concerned. There is no point denying that it does occur from time to time and, when it does, it is important that somebody be there to monitor it and to challenge any guilty local authority. The provisions of this Bill, in so far as they extend or enhance the powers of fisheries boards are welcome.

Overall this is a very welcome Bill. I hope it will have a speedy passage and that we will see its provisions implemented very soon because they have much to recommend them.

Mr. Creed

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important Bill, the motivation for which stems from the mid-eighties and the number of fish kills that occurred around that period, which incidents gave rise to much public concern.

An unfortunate aspect of the debate so far in some quarters — not in the House at present — is that it has tended to turn into farmer-bashing. That is quite unfortunate because it is a misinterpretation of the purpose of the Bill and of public concern which was with pollution and certainly not with being anti-farmer.

It is amusing, were it not so serious, to watch the political posturing and the exhaustive efforts of many parties concerned with this debate to board the green bandwagon. The danger is that, in so doing, much, if not all, of their energies will be expended with little being left to drive it and steer the country and its environmental issues into a sound, secure future.

As the Minister of State said last evening, it is important to put the issue in perspective. We have experienced a number of difficult years but, in the European context, we still have quite an attractive and clean environment. It is ironic and unfortunate that many initiatives have tended to be forced on us by Europe whereas Europe looks to us with much envy with regard to our environmental attractions. As a country we need to be to the forefront in leading environmental awareness and improvement within a European context rather than being prodded or forced into action in order to safeguard it.

I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill, particularly the principle that the polluter should pay, although there are some sections about which I would be somewhat concerned. Excessive emphasis on farming and agricultural to the exclusion of other polluters — be they local authorities, industrial or whoever — is something that needs to be redressed in the context of this debate.

Having listened to the debate last evening and Deputy Gilmore's contribution on behalf of The Workers' Party, I could not help but note his farmer-bashing approach which appeared to me to tend to divide society in an endeavour to conquer the urban vote on this issue. I could not but remember that Deputy Gilmore is a member of Dún Laoghaire Borough Council which, for numerous years, have spewed raw sewage into Dún Laoghaire Bay. From my experience of local authorities I know that is something over which somebody like Deputy Gilmore would not have direct control, it being dependent on capital allocation from the Department of the Environment, but as illogical as it was for him to blame all farmers for pollution, it would be equally illogical of me to blame him for the position obtaining in Dún Laoghaire Borough Council. Nonetheless, his attitude is indicative of an approach to divide and conquer. That type of political posturing on such an important issue is reprehensible.

I was interested to note the last sentence of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum accompanying this Bill which reads:

The Bill does not give rise to any additional financial or staffing costs.

I find that difficult to comprehend because, all of us who have been involved in local authorities since 1985, are well aware that — given the coincidence of the voluntary redundancy/early retirement package and the embargo on recruitment in the Civil Service — local authorities have been placed in an unenviable position with regard to many of their statutory obligations. For example, their staffing levels are now quite inadequate to police the type of policies and laws we are debating here as well as in numerous other areas in respect of which they have a statutory responsibility. With regard to the financial implications for local authorities I do not agree that any legislation can be introduced without its having financial implications. Its implementation would automatically suggest an increased volume of work which, on existing staff, can lead to inefficiencies through no fault of theirs.

One has only to look to what happened in the farm development service where the civil and public service unions members — because numerous schemes dealing with the control of pollution have been foisted on the farm development service with little or no consideration being given to staffing levels or its financing — legitimately are refusing to process farmyard anti-pollution grants. That demonstrates that one cannot foist additional responsibilities and duties on local authorities without providing the requisite finance and personnel.

That feature of the Bill which deals with local authorities as beneficiaries in any court proceedings is something about which I am quite concerned, given the dependence of local authorities on central Government for funding and the fact that since 1977, when rates were abolished, their annual allocations have been significantly reduced leaving them unable to carry out many of their statutory duties. Therefore, my fear would be that, in some instances, the provisions of this Bill might be used as a vehicle for raising revenue for local authorities. From my experience over four or five years of dealing with local authorities I have found that most officials behave in a commendable way. Nonetheless, my fear is that this Bill could be used as a vehicle to make up for the shortfall in Government funds.

Another matter to which I should like to refer when dealing with water pollution is the pollution of the Irish Sea — touched on by Deputy Roche already — and the question of Sellafield, which has implications for all the bays and inlets, particularly on our east coast which allegedly suffer from one of the most radioactive seas in the world at present. Despite much hype about this Government taking on the British Government and British Nuclear Fuels with regard to Sellafield, the recent decision not to proceed with those court cases is regrettable. In the context of the provisions of this Bill, where will such decision leave the right of individuals, local authorities or fisheries boards to pursue legitimate claims?

Miss Harney

No case.

Mr. Creed

There was a case when the Minister of State was in Opposition but it appears — in this context — to have changed significantly when she moved from this side of the House to the Government benches. That decision is regrettable given the fact we were led to believe there was a case to answer. Now, for some unknown reason, never published or debated, we are being told there is no case to answer. In the context of the pollution of our bays and inlets there will be no redress available to people concerned about that pollution which is, indeed, regrettable.

As I have said already, there is an overemphasis in the debate with regard to farmers as polluters to the exclusion of other polluters. However, there is a number of specific inclusions which relate in particular to agriculture and farming enterprises. I have no brief for either the IFA or the ICMSA as was alleged last night by a speaker on behalf of The Workers' Party when he said that we seem to be kowtowing to demands made by vested interests. I agree with the point made by Deputy Roche that this is an open democracy where everybody, be it trade unions, on behalf of whom Deputy Gilmore would probably like to think he has a monopoly of interest, or farmers, has the right to lobby with regard to legislation, and the IFA have done that in a responsible manner.

There is a number of provisions in the Bill which I am quite concerned about, in particular section 7 which deals with extending to any person the right to seek a court order requiring the person responsible for causing water pollution to mitigate or remedy any effects of the pollution in the manner and within the period specified by a court. I have reservations about granting to the individual the right to pursue polluters because it may give rise to crank prosecutions in the case of bad neighbours. That right should be vested solely in local authorities or in the regional fisheries boards who operate an open door with regard to complaints by the public to investigate and, if necessary, proceed with prosecution. The other system would lead to a certain number of crank prosecutions which, although they would have to be justified in the same way as a prosecution by a local authority or a regional fisheries board, would be pursued for pure nuisance and bad neighbourliness.

There is another danger in that regard. We are unique in a European context in the openness which Irish farmers have shown to their urban counterparts and indeed to international visitors by giving them freedom to walk through their lands and to fish their rivers. If this section goes through unamended, the farmer will be forced to protect himself and there could be a closing of access to the Irish countryside which would be regrettable.

Another section about which I have reservations is section 20 which excludes from civil liability pollutants from certain non-agricultural activities. That anti-farmer bias needs to be tackled. The point I would like to put to the Minister of State in this regard is that in the event of a town in this country spewing raw sewage in acceptable levels — there are supposed to be so-called acceptable levels — which do not threaten the aquatic life of a river, there has to be some degree of responsibility on the local authority concerned because fish kills or environmental damage may result from a further addition of chemical, industrial or agricultural emissions further up-stream. That is something that is not dealt with in the Bill. It would appear that local authority and certain other non-agricultural pollutants will be acceptable while other people, particularly farmers in the context of section 20, will have to carry the can. I also have considerable reservations about section 21 with regard to the introduction of by-laws. This matter needs to be teased out further on Committee Stage and there should be greater consultation at local level with all vested interests.

In conclusion, I agree with the broad thrust of the Bill. The principle that the polluter should pay is something which everyone who has an interest in this debate will accept. It will eliminate the cowboys in the agricultural and industrial areas and indeed in certain local authority areas who have been making considerable contributions to pollution over a number of years.

Mr. Stafford

One of the things I have been most interested in all my life has been the environment, particularly the water environment. I welcome this new Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Bill. More regular pollution control of open waters is essential. Clean water is paramount to our wellbeing, to industry, agriculture, recreational activities and tourism. There has been a spate of fish kills in our rivers and lakes in recent years due primarily to agricultural pollution from silage and intensive livestock units. An analysis has shown that pollution from these sources has increased by 500 per cent in the eighties. I am not trying to, as the previous speaker has said, knock the farming community. I am just making a statement of fact that there has been dreadful pollution from that particular source as well as others.

As a city person, I think it is very sad when visiting the country to see nice rivers and lakes fenced off so that the cattle in the fields cannot drink those waters. The farmer has lost out as much as anyone else. At this stage I must compliment the Minister for the Environment because I believe that position has improved greatly in the past year or two. This year was a very dry year and great problems could have been created. There was a time when on travelling through parts of the country you would get a dreadful stench from the water alone.

Agri-industry, industry and local authorities have not been entirely to blame, not by a long shot. The water management plans for catchment areas, drawn up by the Department of the Environment, and the regulation of water standards should be integrated into the proposed role of the Environmental Protection Agency, in conjunction with the local authorities. The primary and secondary knock-on effects of developments of our open waters should be looked at more closely by environmental consultants, trained in the techniques of environment predictions. The demise, through pollution for over a decade and primarily through intensive piggeries, of Lough Sheelin, a priceless asset both at home and abroad, and the effects these intensive units have had on drinking water standards in the area should be a reminder of what can happen when the environment is not properly taken into account at the initial planning stages.

As stated, river pollution is one of the things we are all concerned about. The Tolka River flows through my constituency, as does the Liffey. A short time ago the Tolka was polluted by oil and it was heartbreaking to see swans, ducks and all sorts of wildlife floating around in a dreadful oily substance. The Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals did their best but after the wildlife were taken away and cleaned they went straight back to the very same environment. There is no point in saying that the people who caused that pollution did not know it was going to happen. They should have known and they should be prosecuted. One of the good things about this Bill is that it will not be a defence to say you did not think or did not expect this to happen. It is up to the polluters to know that what they are doing is dangerous to the environment. The increase in fines proposed in the Bill may not be a great deterrent in the case of some industries but the idea that whatever damage they do they must replace will be more of a deterrent. If they pollute the water supply to a main city or town, they will have to pay for that. They will also have to pay for the replacement of fish stocks in rivers where there are fish kills and to take oil or any other pollutant out of the water.

One of the things which often worried me was that when a licence was given by a licensing authority it was difficult to revoke it. Under this Bill a licence can be revoked at any time by a local authority or some other authority. This is a very good provision. Under the Bill individuals will be able to take legal action against polluters and it will not be necessary for a local authority or some well meaning fisheries board to do. This is one of the better provisions in the Bill. If somebody refuses to divulge relevant information about polluters to the relevant authorities they will be liable to a fine or a term of imprisonment. Many companies do not care about the environment and under this Bill the managing director, secretary or the person directly responsible for the pollution can be fined or given a term of imprisonment. I look forward to the day when a polluter is put in prison for a few days or months for destroying the environment.

I want to refer to a few points which are indirectly related to the Bill. Little attention has been paid to our wetlands and the role they play in regulating and purifying our water. They act as a sponge by holding in water during wet weather and releasing it during dry periods. The drainage of these valuable wetlands for short term agricultural gain, if any, means that the level of water in many rivers is low and is susceptible to very small amounts of polluting matter, from agriculture industry or sewage.

I have often worried about the pre-planning in relation to afforestation. Planting conifer in large tracts of land in the west of Ireland will damage our salmon fisheries because of silting and a decrease in the pH level in the water. In Scotland a direct correlation has been established between a decrease in salmon stocks and increased afforestation which has led to a low pH level in, and an increase in the acid content of the water. I believe salmon eggs cannot be hatched if the pH level in the water is below four. As we all know not alone is this happening in the west, but in places like Avonmore in Wicklow which supplied a substantial amount of the water for the Dublin area, the pH levels in the water have been lowered. The lowering of the pH level in water supplies can have an effect on human health also. In many places in Sweden people cannot drink the water because the planting of conifers, trees which are native to that country, have lowered the pH level and large amounts of lime have had to be added to the water there. In Australia, one of the places people like to visit and live, many rivers have been destroyed through the misuse of the water. We must not do the same to our rivers because if we do, we will destroy the wonderful opinion Europeans and Americans have of Ireland as a beautiful, clean and non-polluted State. Basically, Ireland is an unpolluted country and I have no doubt that everybody in this Chamber would support the sections in this Bill which will help ensure that it remains unpolluted.

We have only had this land for a very short time and we owe it to future generations to make sure that we leave it the way we found it. Pollution is a bit like war: when people are going to war there is never any problem finding money to buy guns and bombs, it is very easy to pollute a river but it takes a long time to get rid of the pollution.

In welcoming the Bill we should also address the negative effects of development plans which may well appear to be OK on paper but in the long term will damage the quality of our water and the the environment in general. The new EC directive on environmental impact assessments and this Bill will go a long way towards tackling the problem of pollution of our rivers and lakes by environmentally negative schemes.

I would not like people to think I would knock the farming community. One of the problems they are faced with is that there were no pre-planning arrangements before the vast expansion, particularly in milk production, occurred. I believe that in addition to farmers there are many other people out there who are damaging our waterways.

I should like to congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Harney, on her appointment. I know she will do a very good job.

Mr. Sheehan

I have very serious reservations about this Bill. It is clear that several sections have given rise to major anxiety among the farming community. It is vital for the Minister to clearly outline the main proposals in the Bill which will seriously impede the farming community and could annihilate a huge number of farmers along the western seaboard from Mizen Head to Malin Head.

It is clear that the farming community are being made scapegoats for the pollution throughout the country. Certain sections are very harsh and put a great onus on farmers to prevent any type of pollution for which heavy penalties and terms of imprisonment are proposed. It seems farmers will have to prove that pollution was unforeseen. I am dubious about the very wide definition of pollution and the wide powers being given to local authorities under the Bill. We can imagine the uproar which would be instigated nationally if fines for breaches of the licensing laws were paid directly to the Garda without any reference to the district justice or others in our legal system.

Water is defined as including a natural or artificial river, a stream, lake, canal, reservoir, aquifier pond, watercourse or inland waters. The channel or bed of a river which may be completely dry during the summer season can be constituted as a source of water. If the definition is as the Minister said, then one must conclude that a pond that forms after heavy rain or surface water on any part of a farm which is polluted will leave the owner liable to prosecution. That, to my mind, will have farreaching consequences for the agricultural community. I am very dubious about the rules and regulations that will follow the passage of this Bill. If our farmers are to survive we must eliminate a large part of the definition in the Bill.

I need not remind the Minister that all farms have ditches and dykes that carry water from fields to streams and rivers. Will the Minister — I presume it would be he who will have the powers to prosecute and not the Minister of State — exercise his powers under the Bill? In what way will they affect the agricultural community? I am sure that as far as agricultural interests are concerned, the position in the Minister's constituency of Mayo is similar to that which exists in my constituency of south-west Cork. Do I take it that work done over many years under the land drainage scheme, partly financed by grants from the Government and subject to the advice of ACOT and the Department advisers, that to remove surplus water to streams and rivers will be considered as a source of pollution to the environment?

I should like an assurance from the Minister about the implementation of the provisions of the Bill. Through natural drainage some nitrates and other elements which fall into dykes will flow through the land to streams. It is not possible for farmers to undo the drainage work they have already carried out. Surely it is not suggested that farmers should block all drains? If that is the case, land will be waterlogged and I do not think that is the intention of the Bill. There has to be natural drainage from the land and to suggest otherwise is a non-starter for any Minister.

How does the Minister intend to make the provisions work because while compulsion and prosecution are the easy way for any Department, the implementation of the provisions is a vital cog in the wheel of success. If we do not get the goodwill of all sectors of the community we will be a long way from solving our pollution problems. Under the Bill farmers can be prosecuted for polluting the drains or dykes on his own land although his land may be miles from the nearest river. I do not think that is the right way to tackle the pollution problem. Will the Minister explain how a farmer who resides four or five miles from a river or a stream can pollute that water?

In addition to making polluters liable to prosecution the Bill proposes that civil actions may be taken to recover damage against the occupier of the land from which the pollution originated. Damages may be sought from a third party over whom the occupier did not have any control. In my view that puts the onus on the occupier to prove his innocence. I do not think this is fair. The Bill is penal on the farming community. Insurance companies will be forced to alter their public liability clauses. In fact, some may try to exclude damage caused by pollution from silage and slurry pits. It is difficult to fault them if they decide to do that because there are prospects of heavy claims against the farming community for such breaches. Is the Minister suggesting that it will be necessary in the future for farmers to apply for a licence to farm their land? Have we reached the stage that we will inhibit farmers from continuing the agricultural activities that his father, and generations before him, carried on on the land? Those people were the backbone of the economy and it appears that we are going to force them out of existence. I should like an assurance from the Minister that that is not the intention. If I do not get that assurance I do not see how I can support the Bill.

It is a direct infringement of the rights of farmers to have such a noose dangling over their heads. I am disappointed with the contents of the Bill. If we pass the Bill in its present form I can see farmers being compelled to apply to county councils or local authorities for a licence to farm their land. Such a procedure failed in the Communist States in Eastern Europe in the last four decades. It will definitely fail here and any Minister or Government who tries to implement such a harsh directive or law on our farming community is bound to fail. In no circumstances would such a policy be tolerated by any agricultural community in any democratic country.

The Minister must explain to the House what the consequences of this legislation will be for the farming community. Under the legislation local authorities will be exempt from prosecution. The restriction on farmers is a most primitive one and should be challenged by every Deputy who represents a rural constituency. All those Deputies should have serious reservations about this Bill, which is a smokescreen for future hardship and taxation on our farming community. It is for that reason I have my doubts about this Bill. Deputies representing rural constituencies should try to elicit every ounce of information they can from the Minister and prevent the Minister taking any action which would seriously threaten the livelihood of farmers.

Why is the Minister of State or the Minister not directing their attention at the international powers in Europe who are dumping nuclear waste 150 miles to 200 miles off the south-west coast? For the past two decades they have constantly been dumping nuclear waste within 200 miles of the beaches off the south-west coast. This problem has been raised in several fora, including I presume the European Parliament, where the consequences of dumping nuclear waste in that zone have been highlighted. Has there been any talk about the contamination of our fish stock in the fishing grounds off the south-west coast, and what steps is the Minister taking to prevent Great Britain, Holland, Belgium, West Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France and other countries from depositing nuclear waste on the seabed? The Atlantic Ocean has been turned into an international dump and those countries have been allowed to do so by successive Irish Governments. We have yet to make an impact or to use our clout to prevent dumping this waste in that section of the ocean. I deplore the lack of action on the part of the Minister and the Department in highlighting this serious problem.

I call on the farming organisations to fight this Bill and to make sure that this section of our community, who make a vital contribution to the economy, are protected. I am not for one moment saying that I condone the pollution of any river or the destruction of fish life in any river as a result of pollution which can be traced back to a farmyard, because I believe that is not the case but if it does happen, it is corrected very quickly by the farmers concerned who take every precaution to prevent pollution. I am not at all happy about the way in which grants are paid to farmers who are trying to undo the damage done by following the information given by Teagasc representatives.

What message has the Minister of State got for us tonight? Is she going to make sure that farmers applications for grants to enable them combat pollution will be expedited and processed as quickly as possible? These farmers are faced with falling milk prices and a collapse in cattle prices. I attended the mart in Bandon the other day and one could not give away springers; one could merely raffle them.

Miss Harney

They are not covered by this Bill.

Mr. Sheehan

They are of importance to farmers who the Minister of State is trying to browbeat into accepting her demands as far as this Bill is concerned. I am only spelling out the serious problems facing the agricultural community.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is entitled to say what he finds objectionable in the Bill but he is inclined to advocate what might be in it.

Mr. Sheehan

I do not think I have strayed very far.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A general agricultural debate is not appropriate.

Mr. Sheehan

Farmers seem to have been singled out for special mention. I deplore the attempt to blame one section of our community for the wrongs of successive Administrations who have failed to tackle this problem. It is ironic that a local authority is allowed to pollute a river or bay with untreated sewage without fear of prosecution while farmers are penalised even though they do not contribute to the pollution problem. We should ask ourselves if the farmers of Germany, France, Holland or Belgium polluted the river Rhine. We can be sure they did not. That river was polluted by numerous other sources, not by the farming community.

What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Cork County Council will receive ample funding to construct a treatment plant in Bantry where raw sewage is being pumped into the bay and where a mariculture industry is trying to get started? What money will the Minister allocate to alleviate the problem in south-west Cork? Cork County Council have made numerous representations to Ministers down the years, and to the present Minister, for the necessary finance to provide a proper treatment plant in Bantry but our pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Yet, the Minister comes along here today in a blaze of glory to introduce a Bill that provides not one solution to the many problems that exist.

Deputy Creed drew attention to the condition of the Dublin beaches where people cannot even go for a swim because the waters are so polluted. What is the Minister doing to rectify that? We have the same situation in Cork where the River Lee is completely polluted, but not by the farmers. The pollution is from other sources. In Skibberreen a treatment plant is badly needed, but the Department or the Minister have not provided adequate funds to provide one.

If the Minister and his advisers wish to tackle this problem they must go to the root of it, which is that the local authorities are the chief culprits when it comes to pollution. They have failed hopelessly to tackle the problems and they have not set a headline which can be followed by anyone. It is a scandal to see local authorities indiscriminately destroying our waters by dumping raw sewage into our bays and rivers.

There is an old saying that one should begin at one's feet. The Minister of State should get the money from her subordinate, the Minister for the Environment——

Miss Harney

The Minister would not like to hear that.

Mr. Sheehan

The Minister for the Environment should make sure that the necessary money is made available to local authorities so that they need no longer pollute our rivers and bays.

I dislike the move by the Minister and the Department to turn Irish farmers into guinea pigs. The Minister has a set on the agricultural community and is blaming them for the nation's pollution problems.

Miss Harney

Are there any farmers in west Cork?

Mr. Sheehan

The Minister was in west Cork recently and I hope she saw the problems there.

Miss Harney

I did.

Mr. Sheehan

The Minister should know quite well that there are farms in west Cork. She recently visited a town in west Cork with a very nice mart — Skibberreen. I hope we will see her there again announcing some major scheme for that constituency.

The Department should put their own house in order. Major pollution is being created in our cities and towns by the lack of proper sewage treatment plants and there are major emissions of contaminated fumes into the Environment.

The only thing we have left is fresh air and cold water. These are God given gifts and there is an onus on us not to allow them to be destroyed. We owe that to the future generations. The Minister owes it to the House to spell out in no uncertain fashion what plans, if any, she has to combat the pollution problems I have outlined. She should not direct all her energies and tactics towards nailing our farmers to the mast as far as pollution is concerned but she should remember that there are greater polluters than the farming community. The Minister should do everything possible to meet the points I have raised this evening and take the right steps to get to the root of the problem. The Minister should provide extra money for sewage treatment plants. If she does, it will be the first step towards combating pollution.

Looking at the international situation I need not tell the Minister of the dangers to the Irish Sea from Sellafield discharges and so on. Do the Department monitor the fish being caught within certain reaches of the Sellafield area? Do the Department monitor the nuclear dump which is 200 miles off the south-west Cork coast? The Minister should approach these things immediately. I call on the Minister to rise to the occasion and to make the money available to combat pollution.

I get the impression that this debate is of paramount importance to the Irish nation so I am disappointed at the lack of a quorum in the House and I now call for a quorum.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy appreciates that we have only three minutes to go, and that he is now going to deprive people who wish to raise matters on the adjournment.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,