Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Feb 1990

Vol. 395 No. 9

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

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

Mr. Cullimore

I welcome the Minister and compliment him on bringing this Bill before the House. The Government deserve credit for the considerable effort undertaken to raise public awareness of the effects of water pollution.

This Bill is designed to strengthen the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977, and the updating of legislation to enable statutory sanctions to be relevant to present-day water pollution. The Bill reflects the Government's concern about environmental issues and their resolve to act decisively to protect our waterways, by legislation where necessary. This Government's resolution to protect Ireland's envied status as an environmentally clean country is manifested by the presence of this Bill before the House today.

Much concern has been expressed, nationally and internationally, about the rise in the level of nitrates in water, surface, coastal and ground water. This increase poses two major environmental problems. The first is in relation to the safety of drinking water suppled and the second is the eutrophication of inland and coastal waters.

The Commission has set a level for nitrates of 50 mg per litre in drinking water. If the level in supplies exceeds this level the water must be treated or blended with clean supplies so that the level is reduced below the Commission's maximum level. This process of treatment and blending is expensive and does not always solve the problem; it is not easy to use this process on Community projects.

The second problem caused by excess levels of nitrates is eutrophication. Nitrates are often responsible for eutrophication of marine waters and the subsequent appearance of algae blooms. These blooms cause great damage to the tourist value of the affected areas.

There are two main sources of nitrates; the first is agriculture and the second is municipal waste water discharges. EC proposed directives will ensure that action is taken between neighbouring EC countries. This Bill will form the framework for the structures and guidelines for the protection of our environment. We must be vigilant so that Ireland's special conditions are reflected in EC guidelines, our soil types and rainfall amounts must be taken into consideration. In this regard research programmes are vital so that relevant tolerances are known for Irish conditions in relation to fertiliser applications, land spreading of livestock manures and the siting of domestic and municipal waste disposal infrastructure.

Climate and soil type are two factors which have a big bearing on the behaviour of environmental pollutants. Because of the interaction between climate patterns and soil type, legislation guidelines must take into account Ireland's particular conditions. For example, we record much higher rainfall values than most of neighbouring Europe. Our soil structure is also different and these facts must be taken on board when the guidelines are being framed to satisfy recent EC proposed directives.

With the air we breathe, water is the most important life-sustaining element of our environment. It affects every facet of life, the food chain, the industrial process, leisure activities, etc. As a country we have an international reputation as a land of clean, clear and relatively unpolluted waters, both coastal and inland.

A well informed public is becoming increasingly concerned about the quality of our drinking water, the status of the water used in the food and drink processing industries, the water of our rivers and canals from a fishing and amenity perspective and the condition of our coastal and sea waters from a fishing and tourism point of view. Although it may be outside the ambit of this Bill, it is surely necessary that local government authorities collaborate with the new environment monitoring agency to keep the threat of nuclear contamination of our seas — particularly the Irish Sea — under close scrutiny.

The quest for higher productivity, both industrial and agricultural and the increase in urbanisation, are putting enormous strains on our environment. A proper balance must be achieved between the production of food and consumer goods and the safeguard of our eco-system. A programme of education will ensure that most of our population will adhere to the guidelines laid down. We cannot allow a small number of careless, thoughtless people to pollute our waterways and sabotage the livelihoods of the thousands engaged in the agri-food sector and our expanding tourist industry.

Ireland's clean image abroad is funded by a belief that our air, soil and water are pollution free. These natural elements form the essential components of our agri-food industry which is so vital to our economic development. We must leave nothing undone to protect this country's envied status as a green and clean land. Ireland's expanding tourist industry is also capitalising on our reputation as an environmentally friendly destination for people. Much depends on our ability to maintain our present status.

To date, in developed and developing countries, the safeguard of the environment has been entrusted to the population largely on a voluntary basis. With increasing industrialisation, urbanisation and the intensification of agriculture, it is obvious that some statutory control will have to be imposed. It is important to recognise that the vast majority of farmers manage their farms properly and do not contribute to pollution. Under the 1977 Act, provision is made for summary offences carrying fines of up to £250 and indictable offences with fines of up to £5,000. The new Bill proposes to increase these limits to £1,000 and £25,000 respectively. Initial concern surrounded the imposition of a £25,000 fine but it is important to recognise that this fine only applies to an indictable offence. Indictable offences may not be prosecuted by local authorities or fishery boards but, instead, by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Non-polluted water is vital for the development of our tourism and food processing industries. In Wexford, for example, economic developments depend to a large extent on the development of the above industries. We welcome the Minister's announcement of £400,000 for the drainage scheme at Selskar, Redmond Road area of Wexford, but I would ask the Minister to consider giving the go-ahead to Wexford Corporation for the main drainage scheme. At present, sewage is going into Wexford harbour through 27 outfalls and is untreated.

Modifications in certain food production techniques may well be a necessary development, particularly in environmentally sensitive regions. A heightened awareness of the environmental impact of some intensive agri-production systems and a growing demand by consumer groups for food products of high nutritional value and quality are paving the way for a revival of interest in organically produced food. As I said, the country enjoys the image of having ideal conditions for the production of pure food. Food exporting is of such importance to Ireland that we simply cannot afford to miss out on any changes or shift of emphasis at the top end of the quality food market. The Government's appreciation of the possibilities in this sector was recognised in the budget when £450,000 was allocated to organic farming. The board of Teagasc have instructed Johnstown Castle Research Centre in my constituency to make available resources for research into many aspects of organically produced food. Any expansion in organic farming will be beneficial economically because their products attract premium prices at the marketplace and also such a food production system is environmentally friendly.

The initiation of an organic farming research programme at Johnstown Castle complements fully the role that that world famous research centre plays with respect to environmental studies related to agriculture. This is surely further compelling evidence that Johnstown Castle should be given some consideration for designation as a centre of excellence for agricultural research by the EC.

In conclusion, I should like to compliment the Minister on the measures he has already taken to prevent water pollution. The Bill will help us to maintain our relatively pollution-free image.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

The need for the speedy introduction of a water pollution Bill is accepted by everybody. After all, pollution-free rivers, lakes and beaches are desirable from many points of view. Indeed, the real potential of our tourist industry will never be fully realised until we can boast of clean unpolluted rivers, lakes and beaches. In fact, we have exceptional potential in Tipperary South Riding for fishing in the River Suir. The passing of a water pollution Bill will enhance our attraction in the future as a fishing resort.

I have serious reservations about certain aspects of the Bill. It will impinge on and restrict modern farm practices. The Bill is contradictory in the control it gives to local authorities to monitor the activities of other people and yet does not contain a provision for the monitoring of the activities of local authorities. The Bill places the industrialist and the farmer in a position where they must be able to prove that they could not reasonably have foreseen a pollution problem looming and they must prove that to the satisfaction of the court.

To allay people's fears on those serious issues I suggest that there is an urgent need for the re-establishment of the Water Pollution Advisory Council. That body should advise the Minister on pollution legislation and ensure fair implementation of the provisions of the Bill. Such a council should consist of experts in agriculture, industry, fisheries, tourism and local authorities. They could advise the Minister on all aspects of pollution control legislation and ensure fair implementation.

The pollution of our waters is caused by three major sources, farm effluent, especially silage; industrial pollution, and local authority pollution in the form of sewage. In 1987 Foras Forbartha attributed 70 per cent of pollution to urban industrial sources and only 20 per cent to agriculture. I recognise that silage effluent from farms is a most serious pollutant in itself. However, to the credit of farmers, fish kills caused by farm effluent in 1988 had been reduced by 75 per cent over the 1987 level. This major improvement is due to the educational programme launched by Teagasc and the co-operation received from farmers. Indeed, the increased number of planning applications received by local authorities from farmers and industrialists is a clear indication of the commitment by them to rectify the pollution problem. There will, of course, be the exceptional few who will not comply and will operate in definace of the law. Those offenders must be penalised so that the good work of others is not neutralised.

The cost of coping with and preventing a population problem is immense and we cannot expect farmers to be capable of raising the necessary finance unless adequate grants are provided and, more especially, that prompt payment of them is guaranteed. I must remind the Minister that the costings for buildings, as operated by the farm development service, are out of date. They should be increased by 20 per cent to bring the costings up to today's building costs. Farmers will only respond positively to their responsibility in pollution control if the Government are consistent by providing adequate costings for buildings and prompt payment of grants. Likewise, the cost to the industrialist and local authorities will be immense. They must be provided with adequate inducements by the Government. It is pointless to introduce this Bill unless potential pollutants are given sufficient incentives to respond to the enormous demands that the provisions of the Bill impose on them.

The Bill in its present form could be very restrictive on modern farming practices. It proposed strict and statutory liability on matters which impinge on the very fundamentals of farming and the right of a farmer to his livelihood by stock rearing, silage making, tillage and the use of fertilisers. My deep concern is that farmers will not be allowed to spread effluent, dung, slurry or fertilisers in any area where there is a drain. The key issue is that county councils, with good intent, will have power to make by-laws restricting or preventing the spreading of slurry. This could have disastrous consequences for farmers. The regulations in this regard should be modified to meet with reasonable modern farm practices. I also believe that local authorities and Teagasc should play a supportive role to farmers in pollution control by providing appropriate advice and information.

From my study of the Bill it appears that sewers, which are largely the responsibility of local authorities, are excluded. It appears they may pollute into the most important fish waters with complete impunity. Some of the worst pollution has been from sewers according to an EC study of Irish beaches during the past year or so. The exclusion undermines the real fight against pollution and makes local authorities judges in their own case, something that is legally repugnant and difficult to understand given the absolute liability imposed on others. It is undesirable if local authorities, who are charged with the responsibility of implementing and overseeing the provisions of the Bill, are pollutants themselves. The basic question then is, who monitors local authorities to see if they are complying with the regulations? That is why there is a need for a water pollution advisory council. Some pollution is caused by accident, be it torrential rain, flooding, etc. This may cause slurry pits to overflow which would mean pollution of rivers. The Bill must address such accidents.

The Bill does use the term "an act of God" as a reason for not convicting polluters. One might well ask what is an act of God? For instance, with the recent flooding in Ardfinnan and Clonmel, houses were flooded and domestic sewers overflowed into the River Suir. Who was responsible for this pollution — was it the householder, was it the county council or was it an act of God? It certainly shows a weakness in the Bill and it would be unfair to convict the householders of this offence while at the same time they must foot the cost of repairing and refurnishing their houses, at a cost of thousands of pounds. In this regard I would ask the Minister to place as a priority in her Department the drainage of the River Suir which, in the long-term, is the only solution to prevent pollution in those areas.

The Bill provides that in cases where there is a clear pollution offence, cost must be decided — to replace fish stocks, restore spawning grounds, remove all polluting matters from waters, make alternative arrangements to supply water for domestic, commercial and industrial purposes. In my view it is the local authority who should carry out restocking, etc., immediately and this would allow polluters reasonable time to pay for the offence.

I believe also that the majority of offences should be dealt with in our District Courts. The Bill, as now presented, would mean that far too many cases would go to the High Court. This is undesirable and expensive. The more cases that can be dealt with at District Court level the better.

Finally, there must be a healthy balance between the right of the producer with the rights of the individual to clean, pollution-free rivers, lakes and beaches. This Bill, if modified in the areas addressed by me, will help to achieve relatively pollution-free water, where farmer, industrialist and the private individual can co-operate together to make this country a far better country to live in.

Mr. Boylan

Firstly, I should like to say I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill. Indeed, I recognise the fact that the Minister responsible for bringing the Bill before us is present in this House and has thought it worth her while to listen to the contributions being made. I would hope in that regard that she will take on board the proposals that will be made from this side of the House. This Bill is called the Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Bill, 1989 [Seanad] and while I welcome it and feel that we must all make a constructive approach to the legislation that will be enacted, it has a number of aspects that cause me concern.

Before we get down to specific references it is no harm to remind ourselves that each and every individual has a part to play. After all, we have inherited the properties that have been given to us, our environment is our heritage. We are the trustees at present and we are duty bound to hand on, in an improved condition, what has been given to us. Scaremongering will not bring about any improvements. One would imagine from reading the national newspapers and listening to commentators on radio and on television that we had a major problem of pollution in this country. Nothing could be further from the truth. Statistics in 1987 indicated that 74 per cent of our lakes and rivers are relatively free of pollution and that only 2 per cent are a very serious cause of pollution.

After leaving the Dáil on Wednesday last and turning on Radio Éireann, to the environment programme, and listening to an introduction to an interview the leader of the IFA, Mr. Alan Gillis, I was annoyed. Unfortunately, I do not have the name of the person who introduced the programme but he said he was going to spend his half hour talking about one of the biggest and dirtiest industries in the country — the agricultural industry. I was horrified and I call that person to task and I draw the Minister's attention to that kind of ill-founded statement. He said he was going to debate with the leader of the IFA the biggest and dirtiest industry in the country. Certainly it is the biggest industry and the most important industry but it is by no means the dirtiest industry. If that is the attitude prevailing in Radio Éireann and among other commentators, untold damage will be done to the country. People throughout the country will become very annoyed and the work which is in progress could easily come to a halt. One will not drive people into making improvements, one will advise them and show by experiments what is to be done or by taking on board a particular farm, as was done in the early days of agricultural development when pilot schemes showed how agricultural development should take place. Wonderful results were achieved in that way.

Our clean image is very important to us and we have that clean image. It is more important now, during our six months Presidency of the EC when the eyes of Europe are focused on Ireland. Generally we are considered to have a clean environment and we have an excellent reputation in Europe for producing top quality food products. We should be proud of that and we should ensure that everything possible is done to protect that image.

Before we get down to the details of the Bill it would not be inappropriate to refer to Sellafield and the recent announcement from British nuclear fuels that children born of workers there showed a high incidence of leukaemia. This is outside our control here but is of great concern to us. If the workforce in that industry, with all its monitoring and wearing protective clothing, find that this is the end result it must be of great concern and it is something that the Government should not let go unnoticed. I hope that appropriate action will be taken regarding disposal from that industry into the Irish Sea. I have not read of any appropriate action being taken following that alarming and very serious statement — apparently it has not been denied and is accepted as fact — which has serious consequences for this country, but more importantly to the Bill before us and to the Government's action. The Bill in itself is fine.

There are many causes of pollution. Industrial pollution is a major cause for concern. In the sixties we had industrial development and we welcomed it as it came, without really considering the consequences and probably through ignorance not being fully aware of the fall-out from many of those industries. Recent studies and developments have shown that many of them, in their own way, are causing pollution. It can be rectified but it will be at a considerable cost. I do not think we can turn a blind eye for the sake of jobs to the pollution of an environment and a whole locality. I do not think it is widespread but there are a number of incidents where immediate action is called for.

I do not want to be specific in naming industries but there are industries sited in scenic localities on the banks of very important lakes and the water leaving the factory is cleaner than when it was taken from the lakes. That must be commended. That is an indication of what can be achieved. Against that, we have other industries where the waste water leaving those industries is not fit to be disposed of in our lakes or rivers. If one industry, which one would consider would have a major problem in being able to operate in the location in which it was sited can do a job such as that, then that is the yardstick by which all other industries should be judged.

There has been much talk about agricultural pollution. There is an urban-rural divide on this issue and many people believe farmers are polluters. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not saying that because I am a farmer — I do not condone pollution in any form — but I recognise the great work farmers have carried out over the past number of years in trying to bring about the necessary improvements. They have managed to carry out this work despite all the odds, for example, the wet summers of 1985 and 1986.

The Minister of State will have to speak to her colleague the Minister for Agriculture and Food about the grant aid available. The delay in the payment of these grants is nothing short of outrageous. As I have said, when the boot is on the other foot a surcharge is added in the collection of overdue taxes. I believe a surcharge should be paid by the Minister for the non-payment of overdue grants. It will cost a 15-cow dairy farmer about £20,000 to bring about the improvements necessary. This is a considerable amount of money for a small farmer, and grant aid of 50 to 55 per cent will only turn out to be grant aid of 25 per cent because, as the previous speaker, Deputy Ahern, said, the rates of grant aid have not been updated in line with inflation since 1984 or 1985. A farmer who expects to get a 50 per cent grant on a £20,000 invesment will only get a grant of about 35 per cent. This is not good enough. These improvements are grant-aided by Brussels and the Minister only needs to update the rate of grant in line with inflation.

The delay of three to four months in the payment of grants is not good enough and is not acceptable. A farmer will enter into a commitment with a contractor who will carry out specific work for him on the understanding that the farmer will borrow so much money and pay the contractor as soon as he gets his grant. At present some farmers spend three to five months avoiding the contractors who have supplied the concrete, sand and other materials for the work because they have not received their grants. This puts farmers in a very difficult position.

In the sixties and seventies it was believed that farmers should develop their farms by installing concrete yards or open feeders. Many farmers who installed concrete yards found that the effluent from their farmyards flowed into drains and polluted important rivers and lakes. Those farmers were advised by the committees of agriculture and ACOT that these were proper developments. Many of the farmers who carried out that work were considered to be ahead of their time and extremely lucky to be able to afford this kind of investment. However, they now find out ten years later that this development is the very cause of pollution. I hope that the plans being drawn up by Teagasc at present will not be found to be outdated in another five to ten years time and that they will be sufficient to carry us through for the next 20 years or more. Farmers cannot afford to make new investments year in, year out.

In recent years there have been calls on dairy farmers, in particular, to upgrade their static tanks, coolers and milking parlours at considerable cost to them. These farmers cannot afford to make another investment of £20,000 a few years after their last investment. As a farmer I can assure the Minister that she will have the full co-operation of farmers. It must be put on the record of this House that farmers do not intentionally cause pollution. There have been cases of accidents and overspills in the more intensive units and the wet summers in 1986 and 1987 caused many problems.

When a river or lake becomes polluted people become hysterical and one would believe that the lake or river was wiped out for ever. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing will redeem itself quicker than nature if it is given the chance. I would refer to the case of one of the most famous lakes not only in Ireland but also in Europe, Lough Sheelin, which had a major problem with pollution because of the unusual development of major piggeries on its shores. Some of the biggest pig units in Europe are sited within a couple of hundred yards of Lough Sheelin. The pollution in this lake has been rectified. I recognise the role the previous Government played in bringing in measures to enable farmers to dispose of slurry outside of the catchment area. As a result of the grant aid made available to those farmers as well as last year's hot summer, which helped to dry up the land and the drains flowing into Lough Sheelin, and the corrective measures taken by the people in the pig business at enormous cost and considerable investment, the fishing in Lough Sheelin is as good as it has been for the past 20 to 25 years. This goes to show that when corrective measures are taken and nature takes its course these lakes and rivers can be restored.

I wish to refer to the problems of the sewerage systems in local authority areas. The Minister referred to a number of large towns where major schemes have been undertaken in recent years. I accept that these schemes have been of benefit but there are problems in regard to the schemes which were developed by local authorities in small towns and villages for 20 to 30 households. In some cases there are now 150 to 200 households in those towns and villages and even though the piping to the treatment plants was extended the treatment works were not extended to deal with the increased flow into them. In many towns and villages raw sewage is flowing out from treatment works because they are not geared to deal with it. Major investment will have to be undertaken in this respect. I do not want to name towns and villages but I will be writing to the Minister about the matter. People in some of these towns and villages are very concerned and the local authority have submitted a plan to the Department on the upgrading of these treatment works but other than an acknowledgment that the plan was received as far back as ten years ago no sanction has been given to carry out improvements in the treatment works.

I am concerned about a number of provisions in the Bill. Section 7 will enable a person to sue his neighbour if he believes he is causing pollution. I do not think this is a good road to travel down. Some people will seize the opportunity of dragging their neighbour to court irrespective of the cost involved. The local authority should have the power to deal with this matter. The wrong way to go about it would be for the aggrieved person not to notify the local authority without first taking a civil action.

I must commend the local authorities for the constructive approach they have adopted in relation to pollution. I have yet to come across a case where it has been brought to their attention that pollution has been caused where they have not first gone to the industry or farm concerned to advise them on what action should be taken and to give them time to carry out such remedial action. On the other hand, the fisheries boards appear to adopt a different approach — as they say in the Wild West "shoot first and ask questions later". They have brought to the courts a number of prosecutions which in themselves serve no purpose. In my own area, a number of prosecutions have been brought by the fisheries board but the judge having listened to the arguments put forward by both the defence and prosecution imposed the minimum fine, that is £25, because he recognised that the farmer and industrialist were doing their best in trying to solve the problem.

The cost of bringing a case to the court can vary from between £500 to £1,000. Many people have come to me to ask if there was anything I could do to have the costs reduced. It is possible for the fine to be reduced but there is no way that the costs can be reduced even if one asks to have the cost itemised. The costs can be made up by travelling expenses, consultancy fees and so on but it has to be paid. This may result in the farmer having to borrow the money in a bank or having to sell cattle or the industrialist having to go somewhere to find it and pay it. No improvements have been made. It would be much better if that money were to be spent at the source of the problem. Under this Bill, the county councils will receive the finance raised by way of fines. I hope this will not be used as a reason when they find themselves short of cash for going after polluters to raise much needed capital.

Split sampling is vitally important. If a sample is taken the farmer or industralist or some other person standing in for them should be present when it is being taken. I say this as I am concerned about some of the cases brought to my notice in the past, as I am about the qualifications and the approach adopted by the people who do the testing. The approach we should adopt should be advice rather than penalties. I hope that that is the thinking that will be adopted. If we look for the co-operation of everybody involved, I believe it will be forthcoming as this is in all our interests.

If the Minister is serious about tackling this problem he should immediately appoint the members of the water pollution advisory council. The Government cannot claim to be serious if they fail to appoint them. I understand it has been quite some time since this council has met. How can we be taken seriously? If the Minister appoints the members he will have taken a step in the right direction. Furthermore, if we look for the co-operation of all those involved, including the rural organisations, then we can succeed and our image abroad of a pollution-free country can be used to our benefit in promoting the country which is all-important. Many people are now reluctant to seek sun holidays because of various health risks and we can cash in on this. For those seeking a quiet holiday in a pollution-free environment with beautiful scenery, this is an ideal location which offers such activities as fishing, cycling, mountaineering or long walks in scenic areas. One of the excellent effects of this Bill will be, if we develop these, more employment, so that many of our young people who have gone abroad will come home.

Mr. Garland

The Green Party welcome, in general, the attempt being made in this Bill to improve the condition of our inland waters. We hope that the good intentions will be reflected in the actions of those obliged to enforce the legislation. I will refer later to some reasons for the lack of enforcement and the aspects of the law which still leave the door open for those wishing to avoid prosecution. First, the good news; we welcome certain changes that the Bill makes in the 1977 Act. It places more powers at the disposal of individuals so that omissions of enforcement agencies can be taken up by aggrieved persons or organisations. They will be able to seek compensation which is a step towards the general "polluter pays" principle. Of course we would like to see the incorporation of such a principle into all law on the environment. Enforcement authorities are being granted extra powers to seek information from would-be polluters, and penalties for non-compliance are being increased.

We are aware from our own experience of the difficulties in this area under existing legislation. For example, Kerry Co-op were able to obtain a committal order against the Kerry County Manager for not producing documents even though the co-op itself throughout the events of the past 15 years have failed to supply the county council with the necessary information about its activities. This Bill should improve the position somewhat. We would like to see the role of the individual recognised in this area as it is with enforcement. We would also like the power to obtain information of a non-commercial kind to be extended to affected individuals and groups. I suggest therefore, that section 17 requires amendment. The increases in the penalties and the introduction of by-laws for certain activities, such as agriculture, are to be welcomed.

Now, the bad news: it is our experience that the role of An Bord Pleanála in these matters and planning is not effective. This Bill presents us with an opportunity to improve the position but that chance has been missed in the drafting. Under the present law, An Bord Pleanála commission an inspector's report on the issue which may be the subject of an appeal, be it a water pollution licence or planning permission. That report remains secret and the board can overturn it, as happened in the Tara mast case, without any reason being given. That was a travesty of democracy.

I also note that it is proposed to have different procedures for planning and water pollution appeals. Section 6 should be amended to ensure that An Bord Pleanála inspectors' reports in water pollution appeals are made public with the reasons for the board's decisions being publicly stated. It should also be possible to further appeal to the Minister a decision by An Bord Pleanála to deny an oral hearing on a water pollution licence appeal.

Local and sanitary authorities perform a dual role as polluter and policer. The long awaited introduction of the Minister of State Deputy Harney's environmental protection agency should change this by creating a separate enforcement authority. Our hope is that a minimal central agency will co-ordinate local enforcement authorities. This Bill before us makee little distinction between the two roles of the local and sanitary authorities. When the new agency is created the legislation to change this Bill will be unwieldy and the Bill before us should be drafted with forthcoming changes in mind.

Our experience with problems like the River Feale and the Kerry Co-operative have brought to our notice a problem with the enforcement of the Water Pollution Act. The said company sought and were granted a judicial review in the High Court of the licence granted to them by Kerry County Council. Such reviews are low on the priority list and may not come up for years. In the meantime the licence is all but useless since any prosecution in the District and Circuit Courts may be quashed by the High Court due to the pending review. Such a situation makes a mockery of our deliberations here today. Therefore, we recommend that such reviews be given a higher priority or that the courts be given extra resources to shorten the delays. The Bill might as well be put in the bin if it is not to be effectively and swiftly enforced.

Section 26 of the 1977 Act refers to quality standards. EC Directives No. 659 of 1978 specified standards of salmonoid and cyprinoid waters. Part of this directive was belatedly implemented by S.I. No. 293 of 1988, ten years later, and we assume these are the standards to be used for the purpose of the 1977 Act. This Bill should clarify this matter. The remainder of the standards in the directive should be added to the statutory instrument by amendment as soon as possible.

The confusion is highlighted when one considers prosecutions under the Bill where the defendant is a local or sanitary authority. If compensation is awarded to the applicant it must be paid out of taxpayers' funds. It is further possible that the applicants would themselves be another public body who would receive the compensation. The only people who benefit from this Alice in Wonderland situation are the lawyers. I argue for penalties to be applied to such offending public authorities, for instance, through the suspension or dismissal of officials by the courts.

The central point that keeps reappearing in our deliberations is that of information. I have already asked for greater powers to be granted to individuals for obtaining information. An Bord Pleanála need to be more open. The new agency will be all but useless unless they are obliged by law to open with information and it has been the policy of the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, had for a very long time to demand a Freedom of Information Bill. This Bill should start us down the road of glasnost by including information related amendments. I propose — and I stress that this can be only just that — that that start is made before the Minister finds himself in the EC Courts. We feel particularly that the BOD standards should be implemented properly, specifying that the limit is three milligrams per litre for salmonoid and six milligrams for cyprinoid.

Ireland has managed to keep its environment much cleaner than any other EC country, despite some people's best efforts. Article 8 of the directive specifies that the standards should not be used to allow an increase in pollution. This article in particular should be incorporated immediately into Irish law before it is too late. Such a statutory instrument combined with S.I. No. 293 of 1988 should be specifically referred to in this Bill, as the standards for the purpose of the 1977 Act. Therefore, I suggest that section 18 requires amendment.

Section 4 (3) of the 1977 Act deals with the capacity of a river to cope with discharges. It also requires to be amended to base its assimilative capacity on a seven day sustained low flow criterion. This is a recognised method of using the lowest, within reason, river levels because obviously it is at times of low river levels that the assimilative capacity of the river is at its worst.

Clean water is a basic human right and it is time this was recognised. We have a very important tourist industry that we want to expand. This Bill goes nothing like far enough and I will be putting down a number of amendments on Committee Stage.

Mr. Hogan

I welcome the introduction of this Bill. Any individual or political party would have to recognise that the 1977 legislation needed to be updated. Possibly because of many highlighted incidents in 1987, particularly relating to the agricultural community, there was a need for the Department of the Environment to introduce new regulations, new by-laws and new powers to give a sense of balance and order to the regulation of environmental protection. Fine Gael recognised the need to update this legislation and to ensure we have that modern legal framework in order to prevent water pollution and to ensure that natural resources are protected in the interests of the entire community.

Nevertheless, a number of features in the Bill as published originally would appear to isolate the agricultural community in particular for specific harsh treatment. It showed clearly that officials in the Department of the Environment, and maybe the Minister for the Environment, were seeking to bring about a rather theoretical solution to a practical problem. That is why our Fine Gael Party put down a number of amendments before the Second Stage debate and got a favourable response for many of them from the Minister, Deputy Flynn, during the term of the last Government. I got the impression from the speech of the Minister of State before Christmas that the same amendments will be taken on board in the context of this Bill. I welcome those amendments.

Any new legislation must strike a proper balance and, while we must seek to eliminate the problem of water pollution and provide the legal system with the teeth to do so, we have to ensure that persons are not convicted wrongly or penalised wrongly for water pollution that occurs in circumstances for which they cannot be held responsible. If this Bill was to go through in its published form without amendment, it would put the onus on the farmer to prove that he or she is innocent rather than the accepted legal norm of being innocent until proven guilty. The Minister has accepted an amendment in that regard and it will bring about an essential change in the relevant section.

More than anybody else, farmers, as the primary custodians of the countryside, have a vital interest in protecting the environment because they derive their livelihood from it. As part of our farming tradition we have sought to hand on the family farm to the next generation in better condition than we found it. The environmental dimension is an important element of that heritage concept, and against that background we have to consider this legislation. The agricultural community have come in for a great deal of criticism, possibly unfairly, vis-à-vis other industrial and local authority sectors in the past few years for water pollution.

A survey carried out by An Foras Forbartha before they were abolished indicated that 69 per cent of pollution was from the urban industrial sector, 21 per cent from farm sources and 10 per cent from other sources. That indicates the size of the problem in other sectors for which the Minister has direct responsibility. The problem of agricultural pollution was recognised by the various sectors of the agricultural industry, including the State agencies, long before the Government recognised it or long before the water pollution disasters in 1987. In Kilkenny, before the county committees of agriculture were abolished, there was a sub-committee of that body which met frequently with leaders of the farming community, organised various educational seminars and took a very positive line about protecting the environment, educating the farming community as to how to come to grips with serious problems since it was in their interests to ensure the protection of their own environment. That educational process met with considerable success. The subsequent Government announcement bringing all areas of the country under the new pollution grants scheme funded by the European Community and the Department of the Environment brought about a huge investment in anti-pollution measures by many agricultural enterprises and farms which could have not been done without the assistance of the grant aid.

The greatest problem over the years has been the definition of water pollution. In many court cases there was a difficulty, on the part of the farmer, convincing the fishery board or the local authority that the definition of "run off" did not constitute rain water flowing around from the farm yard to an undesirable source and into a water course. We need to define clearly "run off" and "water pollution". This is a great bone of contention. It will be difficult to get a clear definition which will give fairness and balance in a court case.

No member of the agricultural community deliberately sets out to contaminate wells or water courses. Some of the solutions suggested by local authorities and Department officials have involved such crazy ideas as roofing the entire farmyard, which would cost thousands and would still not contribute to the solution of the water pollution problem. I look forward on Committee Stage to amending the section dealing with water pollution.

We are living in an era of agricultural quotas and many of the intensification measures that would have been the norm in farming practice, particularly in the dairy and beef industries, will not be as intensive as originally thought because of the introduction of these quotas. Farmers will no longer be able to produce more and this will lessen the seriousness of environmental damage envisaged some years ago. We must ensure that one section of the community is not singled out as a scapegoat for the pollution problem in its entirety. The Minister went to great lengths, during her contribution before Christmas, to ease the worries of the farming community. She knows there is unease among sectors of the agricultural community about some of the measures originally proposed in this legislation.

Various speakers have mentioned the contribution of local authorities to the elimination of the problem or the contribution they might be making to water pollution. There are many schemes with the Department which need sanction and need more money than is available from the Structural Funds to solve this problem. In my local authority area there are small towns and villages which have sent proposals to the Department of the Environment and have been awaiting sanction for ten years. Their sewage treatment works are overflowing because of the inadequate resources of the local authority to deal with this appalling problem. The monitoring of sewage treatment plants and water pollution by local authorities is practically non-existent due to lack of resources. There are only about 80 environmental officers monitoring pollution throughout the whole country. That number is far from adequate. Improvements could be made in controlling water pollution at local authority, agricultural and industrial levels if people were visited more often by officers of the authority who would help to draw up a programme to rid us of this problem.

Local authorities have a bigger part to play than they are being given under this legislation. Many of the powers of local authorities will be superseded by those of the Environmental Protection Agency. I should prefer to see more input at local level. I am disappointed that the new agency will take away many of the existing powers of local authorities. More resources at local level and a greater local input will get better results than an agency like Bord Pleanála or the new Environmental Protection Agency.

I welcome the fact that the new Bill will allow businesses to have their licences reviewed at any time. This has not been the case. It had to be done with the permission of the licence holder. Section 17 allows the local authority to get more information at any time and that is a welcome development. Section 20 imposes a civil liability for pollution in a variety of circumstances which will result in farmers and others being liable to damages. It excludes from civil liability under this section polluting matter that enters water from certain specified non-agricultural activity. There is a bias against the agricultural community and this exclusion should be deleted.

Section 21 lays down extensive provisions for local authorities to make by-laws which could impinge in a dramatic way on activities in the agricultural community. By-laws can become legally binding and render a person liable to criminal prosecution and conviction without any consultative process having been engaged in regarding the contents of the by-law. This brings me to the original point concerning the importance of an input at local authority level in the drafting and implementation of by-laws, so that we can bring people with us in protecting the environment rather than having to wave the big stick.

It is important that the Water Pollution Advisory Council be retained. Under section 30 the Minister is proposing to abolish that council and I disagree with that. Various increases in fines are proposed in the Bill. A fine not exceeding £25,000 or imprisonment not exceeding five years or both can only be brought on the instigation of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Local authorities will be able to prosecute summary proceedings only throught the District Court. It has been suggested that convictions could result from inspections carried out by untrained personnel and that has been a concern to some people who have no knowledge of or background in agriculture. The Minister, during the course of her address, allayed that fear and I welcome that.

Finally, the importance of protecting the environment, particularly in regard to water pollution, can never be under-estimated. There is a major problem at present in relation to disease transmission via ground water. Research in that area is far from complete. There could be a possibility of disease transmission, whether to humans or animals, through the contamination of ground water. Certain abstractions are exempt under section 9 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977. Under this Bill we should provide for a compulsory register of abstractions and the boring of wells so that we will know where the problem arises in relation to water pollution and who the people involved are. If there is a problem of tapping into an existing supply or ground water, for example, by a neighbour, we would be able to pinpoint the problem very quickly through this register. At present a third party has no recourse in law if another person taps into an artesian spring or depletes the ground water.

The provision in the 1977 Act whereby the onus is on the polluter to notify authorities of pollution should be included in this Bill. There can be accidental discharges through no fault of the individual. If this provision, under section 14 of the 1977 Act, is included in this Bill, it would give a more positive protection of the environment and would help to seek a proper balance in the implementation of the legislation. Accidents do happen whether we like it or not. If the Bill goes through as it stands at present, people will be proved guilty irrespective of whether the pollution was accidental or not.

I welcome the legislation. A number of amendments will be tabled on Committee Stage by the Fine Gael Party but the main thrust of the Minister's speech will certainly appease the fears of many people in relation to various sections of the Bill. I hope this legislation is brought into law as soon as possible.

Mr. Carey

I do not intend to delay the House for too long. This Bill is welcome in so far as a new attempt is being made to tackle the problem of water pollution which has been growing over the last number of years. There is a need to highlight the extravagance of people and particularly institutions such as local authorities and Government agencies. Under this Bill the Minister is taking on new powers to ensure that there is proper policing of the legislation as it applies to the problems that have arisen. There is a danger, as other speakers have highlighted, that the farmer may feel he will be zoned in on because of the nature of his work and particularly because of the waste factors involved in his enterprise. I hope the Minister and the Government will try to mollify these fears by having meetings with members of the farming organisations. Meetings should also be organised between the local authorities and the farmers.

Previous efforts to control pollution have brought fear to the agricultural community and some officers have been rather difficult in their handling of farmers. While there is goodwill on both sides, that problem should be noted. There was a communication difficulty and I hope the Minister, in ensuring that this legislation is fully enacted, will utilise the modern amenities to improve communication. People should have an opportunity to put their house in order and the State, when it promises assistance, should provide it.

At present under schemes drawn up with the farm development services there are long delays in coming out to see the farmer about his plans or proposals, in approving his proposals and afterwards when the work has been finalised and this leads to a great deal of frustration. There should be co-ordination between the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of the Environment but there does not seem to be much evidence of that. Both Departments have suffered considerably due to cutbacks and there has been a distinct lack of resources, particularly in the area of elimination of pollution.

During the budget debate on VAT rebates the Taoiseach took me to task about the complaint I made on behalf of farmers who applied for VAT returns. A number of my constituents involved in work of this nature have experienced long delays. This causes quite a lot of frustration and brings the anti-pollution schemes into disrepute. I would envisage some difficulty with regard to the policing of the legislation on water pollution, irrespective of the terms of the Bill. For instance, in the case of Lough Derg there are huge movements of turf and turf byproducts down the lake and this is suffocating the natural life of this broad expanse of water, one of the great features of Ireland. This waterway is gradually being choked up by pollution which comes from areas further up the waterway. Many meetings have taken place about this matter. It would require the combined will of all the local authorities all along the Shannon to combat the great extinction of natural life that is taking place. With Structural Funds, if possible, the State should take steps to alleviate the difficulties that have been experienced here.

What has been highlighted in recent times about the Shannon has been the serious flooding. It is an ill wind that does not do someone some good. Perhaps the increase in flood waters — I understand the level of the Shannon has increased by one third — will clear the Shannon and Lough Derg of many of the pollutants. In order to deal with waterways like the Shannon we must enormously increase the amount of funds to be used. Local authorities will have to get substantial financial assistance in order to monitor these waterways.

In recent times there have been problems at Ringaskiddy in relation to industrial pollution and people objected to the establishment of new industry because of air and water pollution risks. Some of the chemical industries have the proper controls. The major chemical industry in my village, Semtex (Ireland) Ltd. have gone a long way towards meeting conditions for the elimination of pollution. There had been water and air pollution there but with co-operation between the IIRS, the local authority and the company, good decisions were taken. This was an example of where mutual confidence led to the control of pollution.

In implementing this Bill I ask the Minister to take cognisance of the fact that there is a need to improve communications between various bodies and to encourage partnership between private enterprises and the public, between the farmers and the Department and particularly between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture and Food.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Miss Harney)

I thank all the Deputies who contributed to the debate on the Bill. Deputies' interest in the Bill and the variety and quality of the contributions which have been made to this debate reaffirm my belief that the protection of our environment has become a matter of the highest priority for the general public and their representatives. This is most gratifying as the development of public awareness is absolutely essential if we are to ensure that our national water pollution control measures are effective.

A multiplicity of issues have been raised by the Deputies and it would be impractical for me to deal with all of them at this juncture. Some of the more specific points raised can be discussed further on Committee Stage. There were, however, a number of points raised which necessitate a response.

I was encouraged, at first, by Deputy Lowry's general welcome for the Bill as indicated in his introductory remarks. However, his subsequent contribution made me wonder if Fine Gael are really serious about supporting comprehensive measures designed to tackle water pollution from all sources. Deputy Lowry seemed to have placed the interests of one section of the community above any other consideration and to be prepared to cast aside any commitment to protect the environment in favour of short-term popularity with the farming sector.

Deputy Lowry spoke about each individual's responsibility to prevent pollution and the importance of getting our own house in order if we are to command respect when commenting on international issues. He also claimed to be concerned to ensure that the Bill strikes the right balance in the obligations it seeks to impose to prevent pollution. However, it is clear from Deputy Lowry's speech that Fine Gael have adopted the position of the IFA on those aspects of the Bill which are particularly relevant to farmers. The amendments suggested by Deputy Lowry would, in general, have the effect of leaving us with the status quo in terms of our legislation dealing with diffuse agricultural sources of pollution, and in some cases they would even weaken the provisions in this regard contained in the 1977 Act.

I went to great lengths in my speech on Second Stage to explain that farmers who act responsibly will have no need to fear this legislation. We must, however, take account of changes in farming practices and also of the considerable volumes of wastes generated by the agricultural sector — 91 per cent of the total load from all sectors. The potential of these wastes to cause serious pollution cannot be ignored. The Bill seeks to put in place a mechanism which will allow local authorities to act to control particular agricultural activities in any area where they are responsible for water pollution.

The debate needs to take on a broader dimension than simply attempting to apportion blame between the various sectors for fish kills. The farming sector has indeed made considerable efforts since 1987 to reduce the pollution risk from its activities and has succeeded in achieving a significant reduction in the number of fish kills. Even with these efforts, the farming sector was responsible for more fish kills than any other in the past year. Other Deputies have rightly drawn attention to the increasing incidence of slight and moderate pollution levels in our rivers — now affecting 24 per cent of channel length. Analysis of trends and causes by the Department of the Environment shows that agriculture is a significant contributor to this situation and that because of the diffuse nature of the pollution sources involved, such as silage effluent and slurry spread on land, additional controls will have to be provided if this disturbing trend in water quality is to be reversed.

The 1977 Water Pollution Act focused on fixed point pollution sources from industry, but only provided for a piecemeal approach of limited effectiveness in the case of agriculture. The Bill will tighten the controls on industry, where experience has shown this to be necessary, and will ensure that pollution arising from the agricultural sector can also be tackled effectively. For this reason, Deputy Creed's concern about what he regards as the Bill's apparent overemphasis on the farming sector is unfounded.

The Government will continue to allocate signficant capital resources to installing and upgrading sewerage treatment works at locations where there are pollution problems. The action programme for the Environment, published recently provides for further investment of some £230 million in the coming decade so as to eliminate all pollution of inland waters by sewage discharges. This commitment is clear evidence of our determination to implement a comprehensive and balanced approach to tackling pollution from all sources.

To a significant extent, the comments made by Deputy Lowry were identical to those contained in a submission on the Bill which was made to my Department by the IFA. The least I would have expected is that Fine Gael would have considered the points made by the IFA and selected some of them which they could pursue. However, the Deputy gave me the impression that his party have simply taken on board the IFA submission and are using it to criticise the Bill. This blatant lobbying for one sectoral interest must call into question Fine Gael's future credibility in the area of protecting our environment in all its forms.

I would take issue with Deputy Gilmore's contention that the delay in pressing on with the Bill is an indication of a lack of commitment to tackle the problem and that there have been no effective measures to combat pollution in the two years since 1987. The fact is that this Bill is only one element of an integrated programme of measures adopted in 1987. Deputy Gilmore said that no amount of legislation will solve the problem and that enforcement and implementation are necessary. I agree entirely with this and it is for that reason that the programme of measures adopted involved farm surveys, reviews of licences, education and awareness campaigns and stricter enforcement by local authorities.

Deputy Gilmore also alleged that the Bill is to be weakened by putting forward amendments already discussed with the IFA. I am glad, however, that he then went on to say that he would wait to see the amendments I will be proposing. I would like to assure the Deputy that the amendments in question can in no way be held to involve a cave-in on the part of the Government. For example, the proposed amendment to the "good defence" provision will, as I said already, expand it to include a requirement to provide, use and maintain suitable facilities to prevent pollution — along the lines of the concept of "best practicable means" contained in the more modern Air Pollution Act. When the Deputy sees the amendments proposed to this and other provisions, I am confident that his fears will be allayed.

Deputy O'Shea, who incidentally had the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill when it was before the Seanad, and did so, raised a number of specific points which will no doubt be pursued on Committee Stage. He also commented on the need to update guidelines and standards for water quality since a report was produced in 1978 by a technical committee established by my Department. There has been significant progress in this regard in the past two years, including regulations establishing national standards for bathing water, for the protection of fresh water fish life and for drinking water supplies and sources. The work of the technical committes is ongoing in my Department and I understand it will be producing a further report shortly on control strategies to avoid sewage fungus in rivers.

Deputy Shatter attempted to put a more acceptable face on his party's decision to play the farmer's card in this debate. He claimed credit for the wide-ranging consultations conducted by his party and for the drafting of amendments earlier this year. It is strange that the outcome of this effort has resulted in a party position which portrays a total lack of balance. Incidentally, I and my Department have yet to see the amendments which, we are told, were drafted before the election.

As regards the Water Pollution Advisory Council, I want to state that there is no underhand effort to abolish the council. The intention to do so is stated clearly in the detailed explanatory memorandum which accompanies the Bill, and the matter has already been debated at some length by the Seanad.

I have announced the intention to establish an advisory council in the context of my proposals for the environmental protection agency. I believe that such a council should have a broad remit in relation to air, water and waste matters and, in the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to have another advisory body dealing only with one aspect of our environment.

The awareness promotion activities of the former Water Pollution Advisory Council have been catered for by a variety of other agencies, including my own Department and the new farm environmental advisory service operated by Teagasc. Recent initiatives by my Department, taken in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and Food, involved the distribution of a booklet on farm pollution and control strategies to 200,000 farmers. My Department have continued to commission and publish national reports on water quality, the most recent being that prepared by An Foras Forbartha and published in 1987. The environmental research unit are currently engaged on compiling data with a view to producing an updated national review of water quality in 1991 and results for 1988 will be published shortly.

Deputies will have the opportunity for a full debate on the Environmental Protection Agency and their interaction with local authorities and other agencies when the Bill comes before the House in the coming months. I want to assure the House, however, that local authorities will continue to have extensive functions in the water pollution control area and will, I am sure, benefit directly from the expertise available from the new agency.

Deputies Shatter and Creed queried the financial implications of the Bill for local authorities. The primary purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the powers available to authorities to prevent pollution, with limited provision for new powers. Accordingly, I do not anticipate that the Bill will give rise to significant additional expenditure by local authorities. There are a number of provisions which should benefit local authorities financially, including those providing for licence application fees in respect of effluent discharges to waters or to sewers, and for recovery of costs in the event of successful prosecutions.

Pollution control work will continue to be financed extensively from authorities' own resources, augmented by rate support grants paid by the Department of the Environment in respect of local authority functions generally. Deputies can be assured that payment of fines to authorities will not represent a financial bonanza for them or provide a solution for their financial difficulties. Under the provisions of the Bill, authorities would receive only fines from successful prosecutions taken through the District Courts, which may impose fines up to a maximum of £1,000. Authorities will not receive fines imposed on indictment which may be as high as £25,000; these will continue to go to the Exchequer.

Deputy Durkan emphasised the dependence of local authorities on the Department of the Environment for the capital funding necessary to provide and upgrade sewage treatment plants. Since 1980, almost £300 million has been made available for these purposes, with special attention being given to the elimination of water pollution blackspots. Such considerations will continue to receive high priority in the implementation of the water and sewage programme to which we are committed.

Concern was also expressed about the provisions of section 7 which will allow any person to seek a court order requiring measures to mitigate or remedy the effects of pollution. This provision, and that contained in section 20 on civil liability for pollution damage, are not confined in their application to the farming sector. Other sources which breach the standards or licence conditions applicable to them and cause environmental damage or losses will also be subject to these provisions.

Concern in relation to action by individuals under section 7 appears to ignore the role of the courts in the procedure. Before making an order requiring any party to mitigate or remedy the effects of pollution, the court must be satisfied that there have been adverse effects and that the party to be named in the order is in fact responsible for the pollution. Claims that the procedure will be abused where neighbours are in dispute ignore these factors. The section will only operate where damage has been shown to have occurred. In such situations, it is only right that the party responsible should make good the loss or damage sustained. The provision is a significant deterrent to irresponsible action by any person engaged in activities which could cause pollution. Removal of this provision would seriously weaken the Bill.

Deputy Dempsey asked me to confirm that it is not the intention of the Bill to deprive a person of his livelihood where he has inadvertently caused pollution. I would point out that the purpose of the "good defence" which is contained in the 1977 Act - and which I propose to retain in this Bill in a modified form is to ensure just that, that a person who provides and uses proper facilities to prevent pollution cannot be convicted on a pollution charge.

Use of the by-law provision contained in section 21 will primarily be a matter for the local authority concerned. At present, I would not see its use being very widespread, but it is important that the power is available to local authorities to control agricultural activities in areas where these are posing particular problems; the clean and pollution free image of the country to which the Deputies referred must be maintained for the sake of our agriculture as much as for any other reason.

Deputy Cosgrave raised his concerns about water quality in Dublin Bay and the effects of sewage discharge on the bay. In this regard, I am delighted to have the opportunity to put on record here the Government's proposals in relation to marine sewage discharges generally and those for the Dublin area in particular which are included in the action programme for the environment. It has been decided to eliminate untreated discharges of sewage from major coastal towns by the year 2000. This new programme will involve investment of up to £400 million between now and the end of the century and provision for this will be built into future economic and social planning.

Planning and design work on priority schemes will be put in hand without delay. In particular, Dublin Corporation are being directed to prepare plans for secondary treatment at their Ringsend sewage treatment works at a cost of up to £40 million. Other works necessary to clean up the River Liffey and Dublin Bay will also be undertaken, including a new sewer at Patrick Street-Nicholas Street to eliminate pollution carried down by the river Poddle.

Allowing for the relatively small number of schemes on which planning is advanced, and the long lead times, expenditure on the new programme will not build up fully until 1993. Provision is being made, however, for additional spending of £5 million this year and £15 million in 1991. The Government will seek support for this new programme from the European Community, including the new ENVIREG regulation which has been proposed by the EC Commission.

In addition to the provisions about inland and marine sewage discharges to which I have already referred, the Government's Environmental Action Programme contains several other measures which are relevant to the debate on this Bill. These include a renewal of farm surveys by local authorities in areas such as the Lee valley which require special attention and a provision of £27 million in the 1990 Estimate to meet grant payments to farmers for pollution control works.

Pollution risks and possible threats to public health arising from the siting and operation of fish farms are also being addressed. Improved monitoring arrangements and mandatory codes of practice are being put in place and all existing fish breeding and rearing operations located in rivers, lakes and reservoirs upstream of drinking water intakes will be closed down where there is a potential risk to the water supply.

The action programme places particular emphasis on active public participation in the efforts to protect all aspects of our environment. Environmental awareness, information programmes and promotional campaigns are, therefore, being intensified so that all will know how individually they can play their part in these efforts. The Government have accordingly allocated £600,000 to enable a major new environmental information service — ENFO — to be established within the next few months, with headquarters in a high street premises in Dublin city centre.

The new service will provide an extensive data base and library on the environment. It will act as a one-stop shop, providing facilities for school children as well as research facilities for more in-depth studies. ENFO will be a source of easily accessible, appealing and authoritative information which will bring home to adults and shoolchildren the concept of individual responsibility for protection of the environment. It will establish a national network for the distribution of educational and awareness material on the environment, with special stands in libraries, public offices, etc. for the display and dissemination of leaflets and brochures. There will also be links with public libaries throughout the country capable of computer-based communications.

These initiatives, together with the provisions of this Bill, which will strengthen existing powers of local authorities to prevent water pollution and provide for increased penalties for offences, represent the most comprehensive approach ever undertaken to tackle all sources which contibute to the pollution of our waters.

Tonight Deputy Ahearn stated that the Bill will cause many more prosecutions to be brought to the High Court. She said she would prefer if all cases were dealt with in the District Court. Since the 1977 Act came into operation only one case has been brought before a higher court than the District Court and since there is no provision in the Bill to amend that aspect of the Act there is no reason to believe that major changes in this situation will result from the amending Bill.

Concern was also expressed this evening that local authorities, charged with monitoring others, are not being monitored themselves. It is important to remember that local authorities can be and are prosecuted by the fisheries boards if they are guilty of causing pollution but such prosecutions have been necessary in a comparatively small number of cases. The capital investment necessary to remedy deficiencies in existing sewerage systems is being undertaken. The action plan published by the Government provides that by the year 2000 there will be no further pollution of our inland waters by sewerage discharges.

Local authorities have been issued with guidelines and advice on the key areas of sewerage treatment which should be carefully controlled to avoid water pollution. Deputy Carey mentioned the problems of peat siltation in Lough Derg. It should be remembered that the Bill contains a provision empowering the Minister to make regulations restricting or repealing the exemptions currently available to Bord na Móna under the Water Pollution Act. The need to make such regulations will be reviewed when the provision becomes law. With regard to Lough Derg I have recently written to the managers of all the local authorities concerned to encourage a co-ordinated action to improve the water quality of this important lake. I am encouraged by the responses I have received to date. I should like to thank Members for their general support for the Bill and I look forward to it being enacted into law as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Minister in a position to indicate a possible date for Committee Stage, with the usual qualification?

Miss Harney

Next Tuesday, subject to agreement between the Whips.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 27 February 1990.