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.