Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 May 1976

Vol. 84 No. 1

Local Government (Water Pollution) Bill, 1976: Second Stage.

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

The purpose of this Bill is to make more effective arrangements for control of water pollution with a view to ensuring that the quality of our water resources is maintained to a satisfactory standard consistent with their various beneficial uses.

There is at present a great deal of concern in this and other countries about the need to protect the natural environment from adverse effects of all forms of development. Experience in industrialised countries has been that economic and technological progress, while bringing immense material benefits, was very often accompanied by deterioration of the environment. It is the general aim of environmental protection policy to ensure that progress with industrial, agricultural and residential development is not achieved at the cost of environmental damage. In saying this I should stress that there need be no inherent conflict between the maintenance of a good environment and the promotion of such development, provided the necessary safeguards are taken. The challenge is essentially one of ensuring that there is a proper regard for environmental considerations in the planning and carrying out of development works of all kinds. This includes making adequate provision for the safe disposal of the wastes which are the by-product of development.

In the area of pollution control one of the more pressing needs is the improvement of arrangements for control of water pollution. There is no need for me to stress the very favourable position which this country enjoys as regards water availability. We have abundant water resources enjoys as regards water availability. We have abundant water resources which are relatively free of pollution. They constitute a valuable national asset which must be protected. Water is required for almost every human activity. Very large quantities are used for industrial, commercial and domestic purposes. Our rivers, lakes and seas support a valuable fishing industry. Water is used in many different ways for recreational purposes and is important from a tourism point of view. It is therefore essential to preserve and where necessary improve the quality conditions of our lakes, rivers, estuaries and coastal waters so that the quality requirements of all users are adequately catered for.

I have said that our water resources are relatively free of pollution. While surveys have shown this to be the case, they have also indicated that localised pollution, serious in places, is occurring. The most comprehensive quality survey of our waters has been the national survey of Irish rivers carried out by the water resources division of An Foras Forbartha. In April, 1972, An Foras published a report on the water quality survey of rivers carried out in 1971. This initial survey covered the main water systems in the country—121 rivers to a total length of nearly 3,000 kilometres. The results showed that 7 per cent of the total length of rivers surveyed was in bad condition; a further 10 per cent was classified as doubtful and the remainder was found to be satisfactory. Some special attention was paid in the survey to river stretches in which pollution was known to be a problem, it is probable that water quality in the great lengths of main river channel which were not surveyed would generally be satisfactory. In 1972-73 An Foras Forbartha carried out further chemical investigations into the quality of stretches of rivers, total length 400 km, almost all of which were found to be unsatisfactory in the earlier survey. The results of these investigations were published in April, 1974. They show that 14 of the stretches examined were reasonably satisfactory, 15 were satisfactory only part of the time and seven were in a polluted condition.

These surveys indicate that most of the serious pollution occurs in stretches of rivers downstream of urban areas and industrial enterprises that most of the pollution encountered is organic in nature and that toxic conditions—caused, for example, by the presence of heavy metals—occur in only a few cases.

In addition to the surveys of rivers, An Foras Forbartha also carried out a preliminary survey of 53 lakes, the results of which were published in May, 1975. The purpose of the survey, which was the first overall examination of lakes on a systematic basis, was to make a tentative assessment of the extent of enrichment of the more important and representative lakes in the country. While the survey did not attempt a definitive assessment of the position in particular lakes, it indicated that certain lakes are showing indications of, or tendencies towards, excessive enrichment. An Foras Forbartha have commenced more detailed studies of selected lakes.

The fact that despite increasing urban growth and industrialisation our waters are still relatively free from pollution is due in part to the expanded sanitary services programme undertaken in recent years and partly to the control of new development operated by planning authorities. It was possible to achieve a measure of co-ordination of development with new sewerage schemes, to require development proposals to incorporate measures to prevent pollution, or even to refuse permission for development which would give rise to pollution. However, the 1963 Planning Act was not designed specifically to deal with all aspects of pollution control and it has been evident for some time that other existing statutory provisions, many of which date back to the last century, are inadequate. If we are to provide essential safeguards against the ever-increasing threat of water pollution we need specific legislation.

In the circumstances I expect that the main principles of this Bill will find general acceptance by all parties. Many of the Bill's provisions will be readily identified as emanating from recommendations of an inter-departmental working group established in 1970 and whose report, entitled Report on Water Pollution, was published in March, 1973. Comments on the working group's recommendations were submitted by a number of interested bodies and all these views were carefully considered prior to the preparation of the Bill.

I think it is fair to say that while there was general agreement on the type of measures required to control water pollution there was, and may still be, some difference of opinion on the issue of who should administer the new controls. The working group came out strongly in favour of control at local level being operated by county and county borough councils. The alternatives which have been considered are control by a national board or by regional or river authorities, possibly as part of a general responsibility for management of water resources on a national or catchment basis.

While it could be said that such boards would approach the problems of water pollution in a single-minded way, an arrangement of this kind could give rise to serious conflicts at both policy and practical levels, separated as it would be from the general system for planning and control of development, which has a fundamental relationship to the problem of water pollution. Water pollution is a side-effect of development and I am satisfied that there are compelling arguments for integrating the arrangements for dealing with water pollution as closely as possible with the physical planning system.

Such an approach requires a system of water pollution control which would be operated by local authorities under the aegis of the Minister for Local Government. Furthermore, local authorities have responsibility for other important aspects of water resource management, that is provision of water supplies and sewage disposal. The vesting in local authorities of responsibility for water pollution control would therefore facilitate an integrated approach to overall water resource management.

As I have already suggested, I believe that the environment and the development process can co-exist in harmony provided the necessary constraints are understood and applied. It seems to me that this will be best assured if there is a comprehensive and integrated evaluation of development proposals as is possible only within the local government system. If the evaluation is fragmented, with separate bodies responsible for particular pollution control or other aspects, and for these aspects only, it seems clear that the whole control system will become more complex and burdensome, that new problems of liaison and co-ordination will be introduced, and that the risks of unnecessary conflict and delay will be greatly increased, to the benefit neither of the environment nor of the economy. I am not convinced that there would be advantages to compensate for these difficulties or to warrant the costs involved in setting up and operating new control structures at this stage.

A study of arrangements operated in other countries for pollution control reveals no uniform approach to the question. Different systems are used by different countries. The important consideration for us is to adopt a system suited to our particular needs and which will function effectively, having regard to the organisational and planning framework within which it will have to operate.

The Government consider that the arguments in favour of vesting the main control functions, as the Bill proposes, in local authorities are entirely conclusive. This approach is also in line with the Government's objectives in relation to development of local government. It is recognised however that circumstances may change and may in the future strengthen the case for different or additional structures either in general or in particular cases. As I shall explain, the Bill includes provisions to meet that eventuality as well.

Some particular criticisms of local authorities as the future controllers of water pollution are predictable. It may be alleged that they have not been very successful in controlling pollution in the past, that they themselves are among the main polluters and that their functional areas are not suitable as they do not coincide with river basins.

These arguments are not well-founded. In regard to their past performance it is only fair to point out that local authorities had no specific statutory responsibility to control water pollution and lacked the necessary powers to take effective action. As to pollution caused by local authority sewerage schemes it must be borne in mind that local authorities had of necessity to concentrate in the past on provision of basic drainage facilities for housing and industrial development due to the limited capital which could be made available for the sanitary services programme.

Local authorities are however more than anxious to put their own houses in order. For many years now all new sewage disposal systems have incorporated treatment facilities to avoid pollution. Remedial works have been carried out to many older systems which were giving rise to pollution problems and in appropriate cases the schemes have been designed to enable tertiary treatment to be added if this is shown to be necessary. Further works are in progress and planning is well advanced for a very substantial programme in the next few years. As an example of such works the local authorities in the Dublin area have works in progress or recently completed costing approximately £20 million which have or will achieve significant improvements in conditions in the Dublin rivers and in the bay.

The difficulty about areas is not an insurmountable one. Provision is made in the Bill for co-ordinated action on a river catchment basis to be secured by consultation and co-operation, assisted where necessary by the preparation of water quality management plans. There is of course also need for involvement of the various interests concerned at local level, including fishery, agricultural, health and other interests.

In this connection I should mention that towards the end of last year it was suggested to local authorities that they should examine possibilities for co-ordination of action with other interests within catchments or groups of catchments. This suggestion has resulted in the setting up of informal co-ordination committees for catchments in a number of areas. The Bill takes account of the possibility that further development of the arrangements for water pollution control may become desirable at some future stage and includes a reserve power which could be used, if the need arises, to set up water quality control authorities in respect of catchments or suitable groups of catchments which, due to their size or configuration, might give rise to special problems.

Before leaving this aspect of the matter I should say that the Government have set up an inter-departmental environment committee whose functions include the co-ordination of the activities of the various Departments concerned with environmental matters. In so far as water pollution is concerned the machinery is therefore already available to secure any necessary co-ordination at national level.

It is envisaged that the Minister's role under the Bill will be mainly a supervisory one and that the implementation of national policy on water pollution control will be secured mainly through the issue of general advice and guidance to the local control authorities. The Minister will however have important powers enabling him to take effective action if this should become necessary—for example, by requiring alternation of water quality management plans or by establishing special water quality control authorities. He will also be empowered to prescribe quality standards and to require local authorities and boards of conservators to consult with each other and with other bodies as necessary in relation to the performance of functions under the Bill.

In the discharge of his functions and responsibilities the Minister will have the advice of a water pollution advisory council. Such a council has already been set up on an informal basis. All relevant interests, including industrial, agricultural, fishery, professional, scientific, voluntary and local authority interests in addition to the Government Departments and semi-State bodies concerned, are represented on the present council. The Minister has also set up a technical expert group to advise him on questions of water quality and effluent standards.

Before dealing with any of the detailed provisions of the Bill I should explain that this particular piece of legislation has important international and EEC implications. It will facilitate compliance with the Paris Conventon for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land Based Sources, to which this country is a contracting party, as well as obligations arising under the EEC Programme of Action on the Environment, which was adopted in November, 1973. To date a number of important proposals relating to water quality have been processed by the Community under this programme. These include a directive on the quality of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water and a directive on the quality of bathing waters. Considerable progress has been made towards finalising a directive on the discharge of dangerous substances into the aquatic environment.

There is also the Community's recommendation on the "polluter pays principle", which outlines a common approach to the application of the principle in pollution control. The essence of the principle is that the person responsible for pollution should bear the cost involved in eliminating it or in reducing it to an acceptable level. The principle is reflected in the Bill.

I will now deal with the main provisions of the Bill. The explanatory memorandum which was circulated with the Bill goes into a fair amount of detail and I will confine myself at this stage to summarising the more important provisions. These include the introduction of a system of licensing of discharges of trade and certain sewage effluents to waters, including inland waters, tidal waters and the sea. The licensing system will apply to effluent from any works, apparatus, plant or drainage pipe used for the disposal to waters of liquid waste discharged from premises used for any trade or industry. It will not apply to discharges to tidal waters from vessels or marine structures.

The licensing authority in the case of an administrative county, including any urban areas situated therein, will be the county council and in the case of a county borough, the corporation of the county borough. A county council or county borough corporation will be empowered to grant a licence, subject to or without conditions, or to refuse to grant a licence. Licences will be subject to review at intervals of not less than three years or at any time in certain circumstances, such as where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the discharge is a significant threat to public health.

Any person will have a right of appeal to the Minister against the grant or refusal of a licence, the terms of a licence or a decision on review of a licence. It is intended to consider having an appropriate amendment introduced to this Bill at a suitable stage to provide that appeals will be determined by An Bord Pleanála, instead of by the Minister, if and when the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1973, which provides for the establishment of An Bord Pleanála, is enacted.

The licensing system will apply to both existing and new discharges. In the case of existing discharges it is proposed that where application is made before a date to be fixed by order the discharge may continue to be made without a licence until such time as the local authority concerned decides to grant or refuse a licence. This will enable a flexible approach to be adopted in the case of existing discharges.

While discharges from public sewers will be exempted from the licensing provisions of the Bill, the Minister will be empowered to make regulations for the prescription of quality standards for, among other things, effluents from public sewers. The effect of any regulations made in respect of sewage effluent from a public sewer or in respect of waters into which such effluent discharges would be to place a statutory duty on the sanitary authority concerned to take steps as soon as practicable to ensure that the effluent does not contravene the regulations.

The Bill proposes a general prohibition on the entry of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to waters. The prohibition will not apply to trade or sewerage effluents, which will be subject to the proposed licensing system, the entry of matter from vessels or marine structures to tidal waters or to discharges or deposits which are authorised under various enactments.

The Bill extends to discharges from agricultural activities. The position in this respect is that agricultural waste, unless it is discharged from any apparatus, plant or drainage pipe used for the disposal to waters of such waste, will not be subject to the proposed licensing procedure. Most agricultural liquid waste—for example, slurry—is collected and stored in tanks, for subsequent spreading on the land. Any overflow from storage tanks, leaching from silage pits, runoff from farm yards and so on which is not actually piped to waters would not constitute a licensable effluent under the Bill. Instead, such discharges would be covered by the general prohibition on the discharge of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to waters. The relevant section however provides that it shall be a good defence to a prosecution for the person charged to show that he has taken all reasonable care to prevent the discharge. I might mention that the main remedy for pollution arising from certain agricultural operations, such as slurry spreading, will probably lie in the further development of advisory and educational services in this field, including the agricultural advisory services.

The Bill also introduces a system of licensing of discharges of trade effluent or matter, other than domestic sewage or storm water, to sewers on the same general lines as the licensing system for discharges of trade and sewage effluent to waters. In this case the licensing authority will be the sanitary authority in which the sewer concerned is vested.

As regards enforcement, the provisions of the Bill include power for local authorities to take steps to prevent an unauthorised or prohibited entry or discharge, to remedy the effects of such an entry or discharge and to recover the cost of such steps from the person responsible, together with realistic penalties. Special provision is made for action in cases of urgency—for example, removal of oil following an oil spillage.

Local authorities will be obliged to carry out such monitoring and analysis of discharges and receiving waters as may be necessary for the performance of their functions or as may be directed by the Minister. They will also of course have the necessary powers of entry and inspection. It is envisaged that programmes for monitoring of receiving waters will be co-ordinated on a catchment area basis. The local authority monitoring will also be co-ordinated with any monitoring programmes carried out by other bodies, for example, An Foras Forbartha. In this connection I should mention that the main activities which will be generated by the Bill, including monitoring, laboratory work, and so on, are being examined in the Department with a view to holding discussions with local authorities on the subject.

Another important provision of the Bill is that which enables county and county borough councils to make water quality management plans. It is intended that initially such plans will be made for important catchments only. They will contain objectives for prevention and abatement of pollution of the waters concerned and the necessary informational framework for the proper quality management of the waters. They will therefore form the blueprint against which decisions on water quality issues in the catchment or catchments concerned will be taken. Provision is included for the periodic variation or replacement of a plan.

I have already touched on the need for a co-ordinated approach on a catchment basis to overall quality management of water resources by the various interests involved. Under section 23 the Minister will be empowered, following consultation with the Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries and Industry and Commerce, to require local authorities and boards of conservators to consult one another or other interested parties in relation to the performance of any function under the Bill.

This is an important provision. Apart from local authorities there are other bodies at local level with a special interest in water pollution. Chief among these are the boards of conservators. Due account is taken in the Bill of the need to facilitate and assist the boards in the protection of fisheries. Apart from the consultative provision, they will be empowered to take prosecutions and appropriate enforcement action.

The Bill will repeal the Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts, 1876 and 1893, and also the licensing and related provisions of the Fisheries Acts, that is, sections 171 and 172 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, which are being replaced by the control provisions of the Bill.

I do not propose to make any further comment at this stage other than to say that the provisions of the Bill are aimed at providing a reasonably flexible statutory basis for control of water pollution backed up by realistic penalties and effective enforcement procedures. When we come to consider the detailed provisions of the Bill on Committee Stage, some of which are fairly technical and complex, I will be glad to give full consideration to any worth-while suggestions for improvements which may be put forward.

I commend the Bill to the House.

As the Parliamentary Secretary has said in his concluding paragraph this is a complex Bill. Any measure which would propose to control or deal effectively with water pollution would have to be a complex piece of legislation. A clear indication of that is the size of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech and the amount of data it contains. Over the past few years everybody has become aware that we have here a water pollution problem. This situation is in keeping with every other European country, although not to the same extent. Being an island on the periphery of Europe we can expect to have an increasing volume of pollution problems as years go by. We can also expect to have more and more problems as we endeavour to introduce new industries to this country, whether it be in the plastics sector, man-made fibre products, or whether it be in the oil exploration efforts which are taking place at present. All those new enterprises bring with them many new problems which were unheard of years ago in this country. Being an island and a large exporter of domestic and industrial goods it is natural that we have a very high tonnage of shipping in and out of our ports. As we strive to develop our fishing industry, we can expect to have a greater amount of water pollution.

I am resident in an inland county, County Westmeath. It is a county which has many lakes of high scenic and tourist value. In many recent reports of An Foras Forbartha and the other pollution committees our lakes have been listed as badly polluted lakes. I should mention that this pollution has taken place because some of our towns were allowed to grow and develop faster than our sewerage treatment plants were developed. The town of Mullingar disposes of its sewage into one of our most beautiful lakes, Lough Ennel. We have all heard and read a great deal in recent times about the pollution problems affecting that lake. It has been put down to the fact that the town of Mullingar had an old sewerage system which was inadequate to deal with the expansion of the area. The result of that has been that life in that lake is now practically extinct and corrective measures taken by the Westmeath County Council have failed to deal effectively and fully with the problem. It was hoped that the Minister for Local Government would have been in a position to allocate further money to that council to instal an effective treatment plant which would eliminate the pollution in that area. Killarney was successful in securing the money made available and the result is that Lough Ennel must still be regarded as a lake which is polluted.

Pollution affects us in many, many ways. It affects our fishing. It affects the tourists who come here to enjoy our lakes and rivers, to bathe in our waters and to fish our waters. They have been a valuable source of revenue. When this country is badly in need of revenue from outside sources tourism was always one source that we could rely on to guarantee us revenue from abroad. The tourist benefited our agricultural industry. The tourist benefited our hotel industry. The tourist came to see our country, enjoy the scenery, the food and the hospitality of the Irish people. It is very, very easy for some foreign journalist to insert an article in some foreign paper exploiting the situation with regard to pollution here. It is, therefore, important that everybody involved in anti-pollution should work together to ensure the best possible legislation to guarantee against future pollution.

In recent times many local authorities have begun to use lakes as a source of domestic water supply and therefore it is very important that lakes should be fully protected. It was stated earlier on that local authorities themselves were guilty of pollution. That is so because any local authority which allowed sewage to discharge into our lakes would be directly responsible for pollution. Sewage disposal into rivers is not so dangerous because river waters are continuously moving and there is therefore not the same degree of pollution. River waters are continuously moving out to the sea and that helps to alleviate some of the pollution problem.

It is important from the point of view of the health of our people that we have a ready and pure supply of water available. Local authorities have become more and more dependent on our lakes for a water supply. We have had four consecutive relatively mild winters and that has affected the situation. The low level of water in lakes and rivers and the lack of storms in recent years have to a certain extent affected the distortion rate which normally occurs under these waters. If we have storms we have waves rising and falling and churning up the bottom of our lakes and rivers helping thereby to combat pollution to some extent. Consideration must be given to the changing circumstances brought about by the change in climate.

Every local authority should be asked to install the best possible sewage treatment system to ensure that effluent discharged into our lakes and rivers is of low pollution density, containing no deleterious organic matter capable of polluting our rivers and lakes. We have always prided ourselves on our waterways. We have always prided ourselves on their cleanliness and their freedom from pollution. I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that, as far as we are concerned, we will give him and his Department every co-operation in any methods necessary to ensure that the best possible water anti-pollution Bill becomes law and that its implementation will take place as quickly as possible.

We have heard a great deal recently about pollution in Dublin Bay. I am not fully competent to deal with that because I do not reside in Dublin but others may be able to deal with that at greater length and in more detail. I am concerned about the pollution of our lakes and rivers which have been such a wonderful tourist attraction. I believe more money should be made available to all local authorities to help them in their efforts to control pollution and more money should be made available to local authorities to help them carry out surveys with the aid of a pollution detection team. If ruthless industrialists or private individuals allow noxious effluent to be discharged into our lakes and rivers we must have some form of vigilant committee to ensure the discontinuance of indiscriminate dumping of noxious effluents into our rivers and lakes. That is the biggest problem we seem to have at the moment. This is going on, I believe, here in Dublin in a big way. It is going on in the country. It is going on everywhere.

We have had a reputation of having pollution free waters. It was stated that our waters were the most pollution free in all Europe. I believe that is so, but the situation is slowly but surely changing. I assure the Parliamentary Secretary—I am glad that it is he who is piloting this Bill—that we will co-operate to the fullest extent in ensuring that we have the best possible anti-pollution Bill.

I should like to join in issuing a welcome to this very important measure and I should like to commend the Parliamentary Secretary for his very wide-ranging speech on the contents of the Bill. I think I am correct in saying that this is the Parliamentary Secretary's first appearance in the Seanad since he assumed office and I would like to bid him a warm welcome which, I am sure, will be shared by all Members of the House. The measure which we are considering here today is the Local Government (Water Pollution) Bill, 1976. It follows on, as the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, three very important reports issued during the past four or five years. I refer to the report of the inter-departmental working group in 1971, a general report on water pollution which appeared in 1973 and the two reports by An Foras Forbartha in 1972 which covered 171 rivers and a further report in 1975 which covered 53 lakes.

At first sight it would appear that we have little to worry about judging by the fact that in the Foras Forbartha report of 1973 only 7 per cent of the total length of rivers surveyed was in a bad condition, a further 10 per cent was classified as doubtful and the remainder was found to be satisfactory. I suppose there are very few countries in the world, certainly very few industrialised countries that could boast of such a pollution free situation in their rivers and lakes. We would, however, be very foolish were we to allow ourselves to be lulled into a sense of satisfaction by these statistics because now is the time to prevent polution on our lakes and rivers in which we take such an enormous pride and which contribute so much to the wealth of this country, both in terms of environment and also in terms of tourism. We must also ensure that our water supplies are of the highest possible standard particularly in urban areas.

I was glad that the Parliamentary Secretary during the course of his address said—it is important in a Bill such as this to keep a sense of balance —that environment and development processes can co-exist in harmony provided the necessary constraints are understood and applied. That is a very important statement because there is always a danger that in our enthusiasm for worthy measures we may overreach and, in fact, do more harm than good. In recent years anti-pollution, ecology and environmental controls have become very emotive terms and I cannot help thinking that occasionally there is a lack of balance, if no lack of enthusiasm, on the part of some of the proponents of anti-pollution control.

We must be realistic about this. We must have industrial development and more processing industries if we are to provide for our young people, particularly our talented young people coming out of universities and technical and technological colleges. With the best will in the world we are not going to employ them looking at beautiful scenery or fishing in lovely lakes and, if there had to be a harsh decision, I would far rather see our youth looking at what might be described as a blot on our countryside rather than have them looking at a similar blot in Birmingham, Heuston or somewhere else in the world. There is no reason why we should have to face a harsh choice and, as the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, there is no reason why proper environmental control cannot go hand in hand with necessary industrial development. For this reason it was no help to read in one of our national papers this morning what I would describe as a scare bannerline, "Hands off Shannon", following on the decision—in my view, a very proper decision—the Minister for Local Government prohibiting the erection of an oil refinery in Dublin Bay. We must be sensible about these things. We must at least have an opportunity of looking at the proposed development whether it be on the Shannon, the Lee or anywhere else, and decide on the merits of the case. All local authorities are very much alive to the necessity of imposing the strictest environmental controls on all types of industrial development. The same is true of harbour authorities, as I can testify from personal experience.

We have got to take a balanced view in these things. We must be realistic and not have blanket refusals or a blanket outlook on industrial development, particularly major industrial development, which of its very nature can constitute some degree of pollution. We are going to have some degree of pollution. Our efforts should be directed towards controlling pollution and reducing pollution, whether it be water or air pollution or pollution in our streets, to the absolute bearable minimum. The most desirable goal, of course, would be no pollution at all. We are very far from realising that ideal but that should not stop us ensuring that industrial development, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, goes hand in hand with proper and rigid environmental control. The two are not incompatible and I am very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that. It is something that should sink into all of us here in this House.

I am glad too that the Minister decided that the proper authority to administer water anti-pollution schemes is the local authority. There is an advantage in the smaller entity. The smaller statutory local body with its publicly elected representatives is the best body to deal with matters which are to a large extent local and concern local people. I would, however, suggest that consideration might be given where consultation is taking place with contiguous local authorities, to utilising the regional development organisations. I am fully aware that regional development organisations have no statutory basis. I am one of the Members of this House and the other House who have represented to the Minister that regional development organisations should be put on a statutory basis to deal with regional matters and that, rather than taking responsibility from a smaller local authority, responsibility should be developed on the regional development organisation from the central Government. In this way we would have an effective regional system and, at the same time we would not be interfering with the established rights of smaller authorities and we would be doing something to put into practical effect something most of us over the years have talked about, namely, the devolution of authority and the advantage in smaller bodies doing certain tasks and having certain responsibilities. This would be a practical step in that direction.

I notice as I am sure most Senators have noticed, that this Bill contains, what the Parliamentary Secretary described as realistic penalties for transgressing the controls set out in the Bill. They are certainly realistic. In some cases they are very substantial penalties indeed, but I would like to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to what seems to be an anomaly in the Bill. It seems to me something will have to be done to bring into line with the type of penalties set out in this Bill the penalties provided in the Harbours Act, 1946, and I refer specifically to section 88.

I might mention that section 3 of the Bill specifically excludes dumping in harbours under the authority of harbour authorities or any works done by harbour authorities in their harbour. It is interesting to note—this of course is a pretty old Act, 1946, quite a few years ago now—that section 88 (2) has a provision with regard to ships dumping in harbours and at times ships can dump extremely noxious waste, causing damage and pollution. A person who contravenes subsection (1) by dumping ballast, ashes, stones or any other substance or thing into waters within the limits of a harbour unless the harbour authority for the harbour have authorised him to do so will be liable to a fine of £10. The penalty for what could be a serious offence, particularly with modern shipping, is a fine not exceeding £10. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary this is wholly out of line with the sort of stiff fines set out in this Bill. But it is obvious that the Minister for Local Government's colleague, the Minister for Transport and Power at some date—and I think the sooner the better since we are now considering the whole question of water pollution —must introduce an amendment to the 1946 Act to bring the penalties into line and to give the necessary controls to harbour authorities to ensure that pollution will not take place in harbours under their jurisdiction.

Here again I want to refer for a moment to the question of industrial development. It is notable, according to the Parliamentary Secretary's opening speech, that most of water pollution—in fact, I think I am correct in saying practically all the water pollution—has taken place and is still taking place in the vicinity of urban areas or where there is industrial development. This is, if you like, a repetition of experience in Britain from the Industrial Revolution onwards, 200 years ago, and it is obviously right and proper at this stage of our still comparatively meagre industrial development that we should be fully alive to what happened in Britain and other industrialised countries over the past 200 years and particularly during the 19th century. But we should also be mindful of the fact that during the last 100 years and more tremendous technological and scientific development has taken place in industry itself.

We have seen photographs and films of pollution in certain parts of industrial England and I do not blame the people for using these in an effort to stop the erection of an industry in some area or other. We should, however, be alive to the fact that in modern industry what are called objectionable industries, if you like, are very far removed from what the situation was 100 years ago. We should take these facts into consideration. It is no good frightening the public by producing highly coloured films of an industry established perhaps 60, 80 or more years ago. Admittedly they caused untold damage to the environment in Britain and in other countries. Modern industry, with its controls and its different systems of providing energy, is a far less lethal construction as compared with its predecessors in the past century. I am not trying to find excuses for modern industry. Modern industry has got to be controlled. It is very desirable. It gives employment. It provides a future for the highly trained boys or girls coming out of technical or technological college. At the same time we must keep a sense of balance. Possibly one of the most important steps in conjunction with the introduction of this measure would be a campaign to make the public more aware of the vital necessity to preserve the environment, of which they are the heirs, and to hand it on to succeeding generations as good as, if not better, than they found it. I would like to think that this would begin, first of all, in the home and, secondly, in the schools and thereafter through various organisations like An Taisce which, although from time to time perhaps some of us have been critical of An Taisce, has done amazingly good work since it was established and I would like to take this opportunity of paying it that tribute. At times it has been accused of blocking industrial development. Perhaps they have been over-zealous at times and possibly unrealistic but I think nobody will contradict the fact that they have a huge measure of enthusiasm and wish to conserve our environment as a worth-while environment and a lovely country. They must be commended for that.

I notice this measure, like preceding measures on which I have commented, contains that obnoxious power giving the Minister the right to remove the chairman or any other members of the proposed water pollution advisory council. I want to record once again my opposition to that. I know it will fall on deaf ears but I intend to go on opposing it. Again, you have the provision where a man cannot offer himself to the electorate without giving up his position on some semi-State body. That is also completely wrong. I lump the two in the same category.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the composition of the board and I am glad to see that it will contain a number of experts engaged in and with a knowledge of different facets of pollution, particularly water pollution. I think this is vitally necessary and I hope when the Minister appoints the members of this proposed water pollution advisory council he will not be influenced by any considerations other than selecting the best, most expert and most competent people because these will be the people advising local authorities who will not have the necessary expertise themselves and will have to rely on advice from this proposed water pollution advisory council. It is essential that this proposed measure should get off on the right track, with first-class and highly expert, even if we have to go outside this country, men on the council, whoever they may be or wherever they may come from. There is one little point to which I must refer. We are told:

Licences will be issued by the local authority in whose functional area discharge takes place.

I can see certain difficulties arising there. Take a stretch of river like the Shannon estuary where you have four contiguous local authorities. A local authority in whose area an industry was established might in good faith, or in ignorance, issue a licence to discharge into the estuary. The resultant damage might not necessarily be done in the particular stretch of the estuary contiguous to that licensing authority. It could be done further down the estuary. This could happen in the Shannon Estuary which has a high rise and fall. This strengthens the case for the strictest co-ordination and co-operation between various local authorities who share a common natural amenity like the Shannon. I suggest that the regional development organisations might be considered for tasks of this type.

The Bill deals mainly with local authorities and spillages. Section 14 imposes an obligation on the person responsible for an accidental spillage to notify as soon as possible the local authority in whose area the spillage occurs. This again puts an obligation on the individual, perhaps a house-owner, where something goes wrong with the sewerage, to notify the authorities. Public representatives will have experienced on a number of occasions disagreement between a local authority and the individual or individuals concerned as to who was responsible for a particular leakage or offence. It can be quite a long time before the responsible party is pinpointed.

In implementing the provisions of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, great care, common sense and reasonableness must be used. I can see situations arising where an enthusiastic local authority, desiring to clear up an unsatisfactory situation regarding water pollution, might cause damage to old established industries. There is provision that until such time as a licence has been issued, a factory will be permitted to operate. I suggest that a better system might be applied. When an inspection is carried out and pollution is found to occur through lack of responsible action by a factory or individual, some system of warning should be given and a reasonable period allowed to put the matter right. If necessary, not only expertise or technical assistance but financial aid should be given.

We all know of instances in our own areas of certain types of industries who are finding it difficult enough to survive at present without having to incur perhaps substantial outlay on the installation of controls to eliminate pollution. This provision must be exercised very carefully otherwise it could do a great deal of damage and possibly make a very necessary measure unpopular and bring it into disrepute. I would favour a warning system, first of all, and after a reasonable period of time a follow-up. Some provision might be made for a temporary licence.

In connection with licences, I should like to see provision made for a review at a period shorter than three years. A lot of damage can be caused in three years. The Parliamentary Secretary might have another look at that question. At the same time, industrialists and business people should not be annoyed by regular examinations which would drive them to despair. However, in the interests of environmental control, three years in certain cases might be too long a time, or, on the other hand, it might be too short a time. Some provision might be made for shortening this period.

Any other comments I have to make might be more appropriately made on Committee Stage. I welcome the Bill and consider it a very worth-while and important measure. It is something which will influence environmental control in this country for many years to come. I hope the provisions will be carried out efficiently but with common sense and consideration, particularly in regard to old-established industries which may be finding it difficult to operate at present.

I join in welcoming the Parliamentary Secretary on his first visit to Seanad Éireann in an official capacity, at least during this period of office. He may have been here before when he held office previously. It is always a pleasure to see him. He is not a person with whom I consistently agree on every issue but as a professional politician he has few equals and I am delighted to welcome him here.

This is the second piece of environmental legislation which has been introduced by the Government who committed themselves in the election programme to the major reform of legislation concerning the environment. I suppose one can say that two pieces of legislation are better than none. With regard to the drafting of legislation dealing with the environment for which there has been no precedent, I should like to quote from a document, the title of which I will give later:

The Report of the Inland Fisheries Commission (1975) referred to "the growing menace of pollution". Even more recently, the 1975-76 Annual Report of the Inland Fisheries Trust has shown disturbing increases in water pollution over the past several years. Pollution sources had risen from 42 in 1972 to 63 in 1975. In the light of this worsening situation, it would be charitable to describe the Government's progress in environment legislation as slow. More rapid, and more determined action is needed.

This quotation comes from a document prepared by the Fine Gael Branch at Trinity College, a Report on Water Pollution presented to the Minister for Local Government in connection with this Bill. It is one of a series of papers produced by the Fine Gael student branch dealing with the environment. Most of the points they make are very constructive. I do not agree with them all but the students have done a great deal of work and I hope it will be recognised by their party. They have done the spadework, they have got the figures, put them in documentary form and have submitted them to the Ministers concerned. I hope that their consistent work—this is about the third or fourth of these documents—will be recognised by the Ministers and they will receive the credit from the party to which they belong. That is the sort of political involvement we want to see. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary has had some connection with them.

I am in favour of this legislation in the broad sense of the term. As Senator Russell has pointed out there are problems of compromise. There are established industries discharging effluent and this legislation will certainly curb some of their operations. There are also problems connected with industries which have not yet been set up. In that connection, the work done by the IDA in imposing necessary controls to be observed before grants are made available is a very praiseworthy way of dealing with the problem. Of course, as everybody knows, prevention is better than cure in the sort of situation which we are considering.

It would not be right to think that the situation in this country was the best in Europe, that we were free from pollution, that we had not got any problems. My view on the Rivers Lee and Liffey is that they are a national disgrace. They are polluted to an extent not seen in most cities of the same size and the same degree of industrialisation in other European countries. Although the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there is a big scheme under way in Dublin costing £20 million and another big scheme in progress in Cork, costing something less than that, it is sad to say, but it is true, that the problem of the treatment of domestic sewage in both Dublin and Cork has been gravely neglected over the years. The state of the two rivers and the smell which one gets in Dublin and Cork at low tide is evidence of the neglect the authorities involved have been guilty of for the past 100 years.

When one looks at the situation in the small Irish towns and contrasts it with the situation in Northern Ireland one sees how far behind we are. Virtually every village and town of any size in Northern Ireland has its own modern sewage treatment plant. This can be said of very few towns of any size in the Republic. My own town of Midleton discharges its sewage into the Lee Estuary and at low tide it is apparent that there is no proper sewerage treatment. There has been no drive over the years to get this under way, to ensure that local authorities had the finance and the will to establish proper local sewage treatment plants. This means that we have a much greater problem of domestic sewerage than would appear from the people who have spoken heretofore in this debate.

One cannot constantly ask that the Exchequer provide the money for all these schemes. I feel that the money has to be raised locally. In the case of many towns it would be an important move. It would be an investment in better living. The sooner local authorities set about doing this and the sooner the Government direct them to do something about it, the better. Otherwise we are facing an increasing number of intolerable situations even in towns of quite a moderate size.

There are a number of important and positive features of this Bill which I should like to list. First, the establishment of a water advisory council; secondly, mechanisms for prosecution for water pollution; thirdly, the licensing system and a register of discharging agencies; fourthly, powers to stop pollution urgently in serious cases; fifthly, notice of discharges and the obligation to give information; sixthly, the proposals for water policy management plans and seventh, water policy control authorities which can be set up by virtue of this legislation and the powers of entry and inspection of places or agencies where there is a danger of a pollution problem.

I support all these measures and I hope to be able during the course of the Bill to help to amend the legislation in a positive way so that it becomes more efficient and tighter and so that it will do the job we want it to do. This legislation will not involve political controversy. It will be supported by all parties and, I am sure, also by the Independent Members. It is our duty to strengthen it and I hope the Government will respond by getting it on the Statute Book at the earliest possible date because it is of tremendous importance.

The effluent that flows into our lakes and rivers can be divided into three distinct categories: domestic effluent, to which I have referred, industrial effluent and agricultural effluent. It is appropriate that the categories of industrial and agricultural effluent should be dealt with separately. The Bill provides stricter control for pollution by industrial effluent. In a sense it is easier to measure this because the number of points of discharge is small, and it is generally easy enough to observe in a river and to trace the source of discharge. There will be fish and marine life above the source and below the source there will be dead fish, dead plant life and so on. Therefore it is easy to pinpoint the industrial discharge problem. However, we have to compromise. We want industrial development. Hopefully, we face a period when industries such as mining, offshore oil and gas will develop to a significant extent. We want to ensure that they will not have disastrous effects on our environment.

The licensing system is a step in the right direction, but I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a number of questions concerned with the discharge of industrial effluent. As far as I can see this legislation specifically excludes offshore discharge. I am not clear on the legislation on the Statute Book at present which deals with offshore discharge by industrial agencies, such as oil rigs, gas pumping stations underneath the sea and so on. It is a problem we will have to face and we should have proper legislation to deal with it. The Parliamentary Secretary should say something about that. We should have at least in outline some legislation prepared to deal with problems which could arise from offshore effluent, particularly that which may arise from the oil and gas industry.

When one looks at the mining industry the discharge is mainly underground discharge. I cannot see that the discharge into underground strata is covered by the definitions in section 1. It does not seem to me that discharge into water contained in underground strata is covered. This is important because in the mining industry this discharge is likely to happen. It is a difficult thing to detect but that does not mean we should not legislate for it. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to amend the definition in page 3 of the Bill, line 25, to include the words "water contained in underground strata". In fact, he may be able to argue that that water is covered. It is specifically mentioned in equivalent legislation elsewhere. It is specifically mentioned in the Northern Ireland Water Act, 1972. It might strengthen the Bill to insert the words "water contained in underground strata".

We passed legislation a number of years ago to establish a nuclear energy board with a view to establishing nuclear power stations. There should be a section in the Bill dealing with nuclear waste, or it should be included in the types of effluent mentioned in the Bill. If we have an industry which uses nuclear fission products, something should be done to legislate for the effects of pollution by nuclear energy plant.

There are a number of problems connected with the discharge of domestic sewage, the main one being that the local authority who are responsible for the treatment of the sewage and for the erection of proper treatment plant will be the body which will be prosecuting those who are in breach of this legislation. The authority may be, in the widest sense of the term, the body actually causing the offence by inaction. I am basically in favour of the idea of developing statutory power to local authorities and giving them the power to prosecute. What happens in a situation like the one Senator Keegan has referred to in Mullingar where, due to the outmoded method of treatment and discharge of sewage, the local authority are the body that are really to blame for the pollution problem? On balance, the decision was right. It is better to devolve the authority locally. We have been urging this for some time. It is a step in the right direction.

As far as industrial operations are concerned I am disappointed that the Bill does not contain a section which allows the making of regulations to control the abstraction of water from rivers. This is more of a problem than the pouring of effluent back into the rivers. Any industry of the type that would come under the aegis of this Bill would be an industry sited near water a source which would take in water and then discharge back into the river, lake or estuary. This is one of the measures which is specifically set out in the Northern Ireland legislation. There is power given in that legislation to the Minister to make regulations controlling the extraction of water. It is section 14 of the Northern Ireland Water Act, 1972. Perhaps the Minister might look at this carefully before Second Stage. It is a tremendous problem. Two problems face a new industry setting up in an area, one of discharge and one of abstraction. Many industries use tremendous volumes of water. It can be just as damaging to a stream to abstract too large quantities of water as it can be to discharge effluent. It can have just as disastrous an effect.

The other type of discharge is the agricultural effluent. This comes mainly from the run off from silage pits and slurry disposal. We have been rather gentle with the farming community in this legislation. I would have liked to have seen more teeth in the section which allows prosecution for flagrant breaches of what is an important part of this legislation. Quite an amount is known about the problem now. The Parliamentary Secretary talked about the phrase that "all reasonable care" should be taken to prevent the discharge. That is too nebulous a phrase. For example, can a silage pit built 20 years ago, old, out of date and overused, be taken as satisfying the conditions of the Bill? We have been too gentle on the farming community. Those who would be liable for prosecution would be those with very large operations. Since fairly accurate chemical analyses have been done of the various animal waste discharges we could have been more forthright in setting out the part of the legislation which deals with agricultural discharge.

In the latest report of the Foyle Fisheries Commission, the 1974 annual report, there is an excellent article on this problem. That article is written by Messrs Oliphant, Haddock and Johnson who are either Government officials in Northern Ireland or members of the Foyle Fisheries Commission. They carried out a survey in a region near Limavady of a mainly pastoral area. There were problems in a large percentage of the farms visited. The problems were either that the silage pits or the slurry pits were not appropriate to the volume of waste they were trying to handle or that there was no liquid manure spreader. Many farmers may have had to borrow a liquid manure spreader from adjoining farms and because they could not get them in time there were overflow problems from the silage pits.

They give a table here and I shall read out the figures from the table given in this article comparing the poisonous content of the effluent from the various sources of waste. The figures are given in biochemical oxygen demand in milligrams per litre, BOD, the standard way of measuring it. The types of waste are: domestic sewage—350-600 milligrams per litre; silage effluent—12,000-65,000 milligrams per litre; pig manure—17,000-21,000 milligrams per litre; cattle manure—4,000-15,000 milligrams per litre; and poultry manure—42,000 milligrams per litre. These figures compared to domestic sewerage figures are pretty high. The effluent run-off from farms can be very poisonous and harmful. I am rather disappointed that the Minister has not been a bit tougher with the farmers where this is concerned. I agree that more education, greater realisation of the dangers and more help with the farm advisory system in obtaining the right type of machinery, the right design of the silage and slurry pits are all factors that are important. For flagrant breaches of the legislation there should be prosecution. I am not sure that this legislation has enough teeth in that regard.

Having referred to the Foyle Commission I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the Foyle Fisheries Commission are one of the bodies which can prosecute under this Act? I am sure he will know that we had to pass a special Bill so that the Foyle Fisheries Commission could prosecute under another Act only a couple of months ago. The Foyle Fisheries Commission are excluded in the terms of this Act. It is not one of the bodies covered. It should be written into the Act. It would be worth while looking at this before the Committee Stage because possibly it would avoid having to bring in other legislation if the Foyle Fisheries Commission was one of the stated bodies along with local authorities and so on.

There is provision for the establishment of a water pollution advisory council which I welcome. This is an important step forward. The choice of representatives on this council is one question that arises. I should be worried if the Minister were to choose many representatives from representatives of the industries actually causing the pollution. They could block any positive recommendations. After all, it is a water advisory council and its main function is to deal with pollution problems. It must have people who are generally in favour of controlling pollution. Naturally, if there were many representatives of those who create pollution problems, they could effectively block the recommendations of this council.

Later on in the Bill there is a provision for setting up a water quality control authority. Again, it is a good provision. In Cork and Dublin, the major cities, we should have these bodies established right away. They will help to focus attention on the problem. As I have argued in regard to many pieces of legislation, it is an important public relations exercise that people should know about the problems that their region faces— problems that Cork Harbour faces because of pollution from Cork city in the outlying areas and problems that Dublin Bay faces because of Dublin domestic sewerage being poured untreated into the Liffey and because of the industrial area around Dublin Bay causing effluent. If people know about it and if they get the facts and figures straight then they will raise less objection to having to pay more.

There is a very important reason for setting up these bodies: they will be bodies with a standing and should be able to give a picture of the problem. In Cork and Dublin the problem is very bad indeed. Some of the money will have to be raised locally. You must tell the public why before you take the money from them; if you try to do it the other way round you will end up in trouble.

In general, I am in favour of this legislation. I hope the Government will get it through with the maximum speed consistent with genuine discussion. There is much to be said on the Committee Stage. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will look into some of the points I have raised. I shall put down some amendments for the Committee Stage of the Bill to deal with some of them: perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would consider doing likewise.

In Ireland we have for far too long taken the supply of clean water for granted. Part of the reason for this may well be that we have a plentiful supply of rivers and lakes in our country. We have a smallish population vis-a-vis a relatively smallish degree of urbanisation and industrialisation. These things allied to a more than generous rainfall level have led us to believe that a clean water supply is something which was infinite in its source. Like many other things which we have discovered regarding even the land on which we walk, it has a very finite resource indeed. It is a finite resource whose saving lies in our own hands and in our own will to maintain it.

We tend to turn a blind eye to its value, not only to the needs that we have for it but to its uses in the agricultural, industrial and amenity fields. More and more we will feel a greater need for ensuring a clean water supply in the future. As living standards will increase we will have a greater call upon a clean water supply and the demand on clean water will increase more than any increase in living standards.

It is essential for us to protect our water resources. Otherwise, we might find ourselves in a situation like the United Kingdom where cities like Manchester have to draw their water supply from far distant fields. I think Manchester draws it from the Lake District. We certainly do not want to see that kind of situation arising in Dublin or in this country. There is no scarcity in recent years of surveys which have given rise to a certain amount of concern over water pollution. Reference has already been made to the An Foras Forbartha report which says that 7 per cent of rivers and lakes were classified as seriously polluted and 10 per cent of doubtful quality.

There are other reports which it is no harm to mention. The Industrial Development Authority Report, 1972, had something to say about inadequate sewerage schemes in Ireland. It listed in all 18 coastal towns where the sewerage outflow goes into the sea. Breaking these down we find that six are in the north-eastern region, two in the north-west, two in Donegal, four in the west and four along the east coast. This amounts to 18 coastal towns. It does not account for sewage which reaches the sea from inland towns going downstream into the sea.

In 1970 there was also a survey carried out of a number of industrial firms. This survey showed that nearly half of the firms surveyed stated that their actual sewerage disposal arrangements were not subject to local authority or any statutory arrangements. It is a very pleasant feature of this legislation that local authorities are given very strengthened powers and remedial measures in this regard. A local authority will be responsible for licensing as regards sewage inflows, as regards monitoring of water pollution levels, as regards devising of water quality plans. It can also enter into co-ordination with other authorities to deal with water pollution on a catchment basis.

These are all welcome additional responsibilities for local authorities. Hitherto they have had no statutory responsibility, indeed they have had little or no powers whatsoever with which to deal with water pollution. While I feel that we are giving additional powers to local authorities we must ensure that they have, first of all, the staff and resources with which to tackle these responsibilities. It has been my experience in regard to the operation of the 1963 Planning Act that in far too many cases they have been found somewhat dilatory in coming to deal with abuses. Unless we ensure in advance that they have qualified, and experienced and adequate staff numbers and that they have financial resources, they will have the same difficulties in tackling water pollution problems. Senator West makes reference to the wide field of water pollution and he itemises industrial, domestic and agricultural pollution. This is a very extensive field indeed and I am a bit doubtful whether local authorities as at present constituted will be able to cope adequately with this additional responsibility. I am sure that they will call upon the services of the regional development authorities who have been doing a lot of good advisory service work. I feel these development organisations should be brought more into the play in regard to the tackling of water pollution.

I am glad to see that the level of fines has been raised to something in the region of £250, and £100 for each consecutive day that the abuse continues. It is good to see the nonsense of the £10 a day fine done away with once and for all. That was absolutely no deterrent to any large scale enterprise which could more or less cock its nose at such a fine and carry on with the abuse. It is good also to see that the onus is now being placed on polluters, first of all to advise the local authority in the area even where there has been an accidental discharge of sewage. In far too many cases we find nothing is done whatsoever about such an abuse and the local authority is left more or less running around in circles trying to find out the source of the outflow.

But when all is said and done I think that, no matter what legislation we have on the books, no matter what powers and responsibilities we give to local authorities or to any other bodies, we come down to the need for public awareness of the dangers and the consequences of water pollution. The Parliamentary Secretary in his fine speech made reference to the need in the future for having in the case of agriculture, education and proper advisory services geared towards the correction of any abuses as regards leakages from slurry pits and so on. I think something similar will have to be done in regard to the public in general because the more aware they are of the consequences of water pollution the more alert will they be to any possible abuses that are being perpetrated in their own immediate locality. As local authorities will be the bodies which will deal with water pollution in future it will be all the more important that the public should be aware that it is up to them just as much as it is to the local authority to bring to notice any abuses which they see happening in their own locality. Perhaps we should provide resources in future towards the education of our children in realising that a clean water supply is a very precious asset and an unclean water supply is possibly a useless think for anybody.

I welcome this Bill and I can only wish it success in its implementation. I feel that at local authority level we are going to have to find additional funds to meet the increased costs which will arise from the introduction of this legislation but I think that is an increased cost which we will face up to in a responsible way.

Together with the other Senators I wish to welcome this Bill but for many areas I feel it has unfortunately come too late. However, as we say in Irish, "Is fearr go déanach ná go bráthach." Tá súil agam go ndéanfaidh gach comhairle chontae beart do réir an Bhille seo agus feachaint chuige nach ndéanfar an t-uisce nó an fharraige a thruailliú a thuilleadh.

The main objects of the Bill have been outlined by every Senator who has spoken. The chief object is to make effective arrangements for the control of water pollution and to ensure that we have top quality water in our rivers and surrounding or country. I am glad that special reference is made to drinking water because, as a few of the Senators have said, this is not an unlimited commodity and indeed in many of our local authorities it has been greatly abused. I think Senator West expressed the idea that we should control extraction also from our sources of water as well as protecting the source of the water we have.

Local authorities are being given the onerous task of ensuring that our water is kept up to a good standard, but unfortunately they are the greatest culprits themselves in this regard. I would say that in 80 per cent of our local authority areas we have untreated sewage going into our rivers and lakes and, more seriously still, going into our beaches.

Senator West said that we should not put the onus on the Government to make money available for treatment plants. I think this is ridiculous because we have investigated the cost of a very small village treatment plant and we have found to our surprise that it would cost thousands and thousands of pounds. So, I am afraid that Senator West's idea of asking the local community to bear the cost of the treatment in local sewerage schemes is not feasible. What we are talking about, the protection of our environment and the protection of our water inside and outside the country, will call for a very substantial amount in our budget and I hope that when the next budget comes around that there will be a very substantial allocation for local authorities to take on this duty and responsibility that has been placed upon them.

It is right that the local authorities should be asked to do this job but I think Senator Russell was wise when he said that there are areas where it should be done on a regional basis. The regional development organisations could play a very big role in the pollution sphere and also in environmental protection. As Senator Russell said, if anything goes wrong in the Clare area we in Limerick and Kerry are bound to suffer as a result, so that that region on the Shannon should be under one control. There are many other areas where the same consideration applies because rivers which have become polluted at the source carry the pollution to some beach or some other area. This is a case where I think you will have to combine not only the local authorities responsible but you will also have to get co-operation and co-ordination between various areas when it comes to rivers and beaches that concern many counties. Money will be a big factor when we get down to correcting pollution of inland and offshore water.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that as members of the EEC we must now comply with international standards and here my main worry is licensing. It is well known now to many of us in seaside areas that in the very near future, if we are to survive as seaside and bathing resorts we must have a licence and we will have to prove that the waters of our beaches are unpolluted. It is sad to find that dozens of our beaches have untreated sewage flowing into them. This will have to be taken up at a national level because tourism is the second major industry in this country. In places like Ballybunion, Ballyheigue, Salthill and so on it is the one major industry and there is not much hope of our getting further industries because we are on the periphery of our country, along the coast, and industries generally prefer to set up in a central area. I hope that a special allocation will be given to areas solely depending on tourism to ensure that beaches are cleared up in time to be reckoned as suitable for a licence under the rules of EEC. We have only about 3,500 miles of coastline and of that only 350 miles of beach. The beach is a very rare commodity and it is being thoroughly blackguarded by our local authorities. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see to it that a special allocation is provided to clean up the beaches of our country, which are our greatest asset, in conjunction with our drinking water, the water in our rivers and the waters in our lakes.

Our local authorities will have to set headlines. They cannot expect and demand from industry a standard which they themselves are not keeping. It is up to us and to the local authorities to put our house in order, but it will be a very expensive task. Given the money, I am sure that all of us in each area will accept the duties being imposed upon us under the different sections of this Bill.

I welcome this Bill, not because I think it will bring about any spectacular improvement in the present situation where we have pretty widespread water pollution but because a debate such as we are having here today may awaken the public to the problem. I was particularly impressed by the line taken by Senators West and Aherne. We should not be clapping ourselves on the backs and saying that we have the lowest rate of water pollution in Europe, because you cannot make a comparison with Europe, where countries are heavily industrialised and densely populated while our country is comparatively thinly populated and lightly industrialised.

The Foras Forbartha report of the survey which was carried out in 1971 gives rise for concern and it would seem from reports in the newspapers that the situation has deteriorated since then. In that report we were told that 7 per cent of our waterways were badly polluted. The condition of 10 per cent of the waterways was doubtful and the others were quite good. Since 1971 the amount of raw sewage particularly going into our waterways has increased tremendously and this is due to the rising standard of living. Nowadays, more and more people have bathrooms and flush toilets. In the old days most dwellings merely had dry toilets and the resultant sewage was just buried in a hole in the garden. But nowadays it is discharged into the rivers, streams and waterways of our country and we could say that these waterways are merely one part of the pipeline which carries our sewage from the factory and the home to the sea. That is how they are used.

It is no surprise to us to find that, according to the report, the water-polluted areas in our waterways are downstream from factories and from towns. I do not agree with the proposal in the Bill that the local authorities should be the bodies to control water pollution. I know it is a cliche that we hear quite often nowadays but, unfortunately, it is true: the local authorities in this country are, perhaps not the greatest polluters individually, but they are the most widespread polluters and it is not easy to see a solution to the problem. It will cost a great deal of money to provide the alternative which was mentioned here already today, sewage disposal plants. In other countries you have them in every town and village but we have very few, if any, in this country. We take the cheap way out and dump our factory effluent and the necessary sewage into the waterways. It costs a great deal of money to provide disposal plants and it will be a very slow process to have the country fully equipped with them. It will take many years, no doubt.

The point raised by Senator Aherne about our bathing places and beaches is very relevant and it should be treated with urgency. Many of our beaches and bathing places are contaminated seriously and it must have a damaging effect on our tourist industry which is our second largest industry. It is not uncommon nowadays to go to a beach adjacent to a town or city and see large lumps of excrement and other repulsive matter floating about on the surface of the sea. I know of several bathing places which were very popular with local inhabitants a number of years ago and which nowadays are disused because of pollution. We must take steps to eliminate it. It seems wrong to me that under this Bill local authorities should be exempt in regard to emitting domestic sewage into the waterway. This is the very type of pollution we should be trying to combat. According to the Bill industries must get a licence to emit their effluent but local authorities are exempt. There are certain requirements placed upon them. I have grave doubts that these requirements will be very strict and that they will be adhered to in many cases.

As regards industries, we have had an unfortunate attitude towards them for many years. I assume it was utilitarian in that we felt that the provision of jobs was far more desirable than the prevention of pollution. That was all right centuries ago, but in this day and age our attitude should change.

I am not completely happy that we are at present studying and identifying the extent to which pollution occurs, especially in our fresh water rivers and streams. Too often industrial effluent is mixing with domestic effluent and being discharged into waterways. In many cases this causes excessive pollution because industrial effluent contains acids, waste milk and other chemicals which, when mixed with domestic effluent can cause a most unsavoury looking scum on the surrounding waters. There does not seem to be anybody who can tell us what effects this type of effluent will have on fish life.

Fishermen on some of the rivers tell me that they regard pollution as being a far greater killer than either poaching or overfishing and that they would like to see something being done about it. Slurry is also killing large numbers of fish. It is not just killing them, but it is stopping them from going up the rivers. When fish sense pollution at the mouth of a river they turn back. I read recently that a salmon was caught in the River Thames last year.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share