The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the definition of agriculture is wide enough to cover activities, such as mink farming, which may not be covered by the existing definition. The amendment will also bring the definition more into line with the definition of "agriculture" in the Planning Act.
Local Government (Water Pollution) Bill, 1976: Committee Stage.
Government amendment No. 1:
In subsection (1), page 2, line 11, to delete "(including pigs and poultry)" and insert "(including pigs, poultry and any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In subsection (1), page 2, line 37 after "fish", to add:—
"or to render such waters harmful or detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational or other legitimate uses."
The purpose of this amendment is to broaden the definition of polluting matter under the Bill. This is an extremely important Bill. It is about time we had an overall regulation of water pollution. I am not satisfied that the definition of polluting matter in the Bill is broad or adequate enough for the purposes as outlined by the Minister in introducing the Bill some weeks ago in the Seanad.
The present definition of "polluting matter" is:
"polluting matter" includes any substance (including any explosive, liquid or gas) the entry or discharge of which into any water is liable to render those or any other waters poisonous or injurious to fish, spawning grounds or the food of any fish, or to injure fish in their value as human food, or to impair the usefulness of the bed and soil of any waters as spawning grounds or their capacity to produce the food of fish;
In other words, the whole emphasis of the definition of "polluting matter" relates to fish, spawning grounds for fish, and the health of fish. When we are talking about control of water pollution, we are talking about a much broader type of pollution. It would be much too narrow and, indeed possibly highly risky, to confine polluting matter to what would be polluting to fish. There are other forms of pollution which we must be concerned about. Therefore my amendment would add to the definition contained in the Bill the words "or to render such waters harmful or detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational or other legitimate uses". I submit that this is a definition of "polluting matter" which would allow local authorities, under the scheme in this Bill, to prevent water pollution such as would render the waters unfit as a human amenity, or as a recreational amenity. This should be the concern of this Bill.
We promote ourselves as a tourist country. We promote our fresh, clean water. We all know that there are very substantial dangers in certain recreational areas as well as areas where the pollution is causing damage to fish life, or to other agricultural uses. It appears to me that the definition of "polluting matter" has been lifted out of the Fisheries Consolidation Act, 1969, and since this is not just a fish water pollution Bill but is a general control of water pollution Bill it would be better to have the broader definition which emphasises the real significance of the Bill and which, in particular, would allow local authorities to consider the recreational aspect which is extremely important for the tourist industry.
I should like to support this amendment. When speaking two or three weeks ago on the Planning Development Bill I referred to what I termed the corpus of conservation legislation in this State. I had in mind the Local Government (Water Pollution) Bill, the Wildlife Bill, which is now before the other House, and the Planning and Development Bill. In support of Senator Robinson's amendment I would ask the House to bear in mind that there is evidence of what she has suggested being accepted by the Minister in the case of the discussion which took place in this House on the Wildlife Bill. When we were discussing the Wildlife Bill in detail one of the better developments on it was when the Minister agreed to accept an amendment which created the concept of marine parks. In the discussion on that amendment much praise had been given to forestry parks. It was pointed out that where the community interests warranted it, and where recreational demands suggested it, we should preserve waters. What this amendment seeks to do is to change the subsection in precisely the same way as a similar subsection was changed in the Wildlife Bill. For that reason I see sense in it, if it is feasible.
I too support this amendment. It is very sensible and is needed if we are to do the things that are envisaged in the Bill. It is important that drinking water is available. It is also important that our waters for recreational purposes are reasonably clean. Where people use waters for skiing and swimming it is tremendously important that the water would be reasonably clean. So far as animal health it concerned, it is also of immense importance. Consequently I support the amendment.
I agree with Senator Robinson that this is a very important Bill. I also agree with the views she expressed that it is long overdue. I would like to express my appreciation of the special interest which Senator Robinson has displayed in the Bill. I have very carefully considered the amendment and I feel it is unnecessary.
Under the Bill trade and sewage effluents will be controlled by a licensing system, as pointed out clearly under section 4, whether or not such effluents are polluting. The definition of polluting matter will have no effect on the control of trade and sewage effluents. The Bill also prohibits, as can be seen by section 3, the entry to waters of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter, other than trade and sewage effluents. It is in respect of this prohibition that Senator Robinson's amendment must be considered. In view of the fact that the definition of "polluting matter" is not exclusive, the term would therefore have its ordinary meaning in addition to that in the definition and the definition includes the Fisheries Act definition of deleterious matter and the entry of poisonous and noxious matter is prohibited. In addition to polluting matter it is not clear what matter not already covered by the Bill could, on its being discharged to waters, give rise to the harmful and detrimental effects mentioned by the Senators speaking to the amendment. The extension of the definition on the lines proposed and suggested could give rise to considerable enforcement difficulties. It is by no means clear how even a very polluted river could of itself be harmful to public health. In view of that I have gone very deeply into this matter. I am quite satisfied that the amendment is not necessary and perhaps, in the circumstances, Senator Robinson might wish to reconsider the amendment.
I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the considerable thought he obviously gave to this amendment but I am not satisfied that we have closed the argument. I do not accept the points made. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary began by saying that he did not feel that the amendment was necessary, although he agreed with my point of view. The last time that happened to me was in the Adoption Bill, 1974, moved in this House, when the Minister said he did not think it necessary to write in a section that said that the welfare of the child would be a paramount consideration. Since I was moving the amendment, and since I felt it was necessary, he reluctantly accepted it. I hate to say "I told you so", but history has proved that it is necessary to write that in. I submit that it is necessary to add the additional senence in the amendment to this particular definition of "polluting matter".
The Parliamentary Secretary said in his reply that the definition of "polluting matter" was not exclusive, that the word "polluting" would retain its ordinary meaning. I submit that when you put a legal definition into the definition section of a Bill, you give it an exclusive meaning. You say, "for the purposes of this Bill ‘polluting matter' means" and we have narrowed the possible meaning of "polluting matter", precisely by inserting it here as a legal definition. In my view, it is very narrow. It relates to the polluting of fish or spawning grounds, that is the emphasis of it. I do not think that should be the emphasis of this Bill. It may be that it will not add a great deal to enforcement but it would certainly add balance and would show the intention and the broader scope of a proper water pollution control Bill. It would emphasise that local authorities, when issuing licences under section 4 of the Act, and thinking about the appropriate grounds, should have in mind that when talking about polluting matter one is talking about matter which can be detrimental to the amenity of that area, matter which can be detrimental to the enjoyment by people of their water resources, even if it is not damaging to fish or fish life.
I do not know precisely when that might arise but I could think of circumstances where it would arise and it should be clearly within the power of local authority. By defining "polluting matter" very narrowly, and necessarily exclusively, in that it is in the definition section of the Bill. I would say that local authorities might well approach the function of issuing licences by saying: "We are confined to the word as defined in the Act and, therefore, although it might damage or destroy the amenity and recreational aspect of the area, we cannot, at the same time, call it polluting matter because it does not fit into the statutory definition of "polluting matter". I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has obivously considered this in some depth and in some detail but I would urge him to reconsider it and, if he would be happy with some other wording, to bring in an amendment which makes the point at Report Stage.
Senator Robinson is correct in saying that by defining polluting matter as the Parliamentary Secretary defined it in section 1 he excludes other forms of polluting matter. One could make additions that include all these things. That is not a complete definition. It would be open to add other items, but they will have to relate to fish. The fact that it is defined in this way does not mean that no other form of polluting matter could be covered by the Bill. It would have to be polluting matter relating to fish. All the phraseology in this definition is in relation to matters that will injure fish. It would be quite impossible, therefore, to import into this Bill any other form of pollutant.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that section 3 says that a person shall not cause or permit any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to enter waters. It is not, in fact, just polluting matter that is at issue. To seek only one example, it would be possible to have a swimming place ruined from the point of view of the recreation of the public by a material which was neither noxious nor poisonous and not polluting in the sense that it harmed fish. It would not be covered by this Bill. It may be that Senator Robinson's amendment is too wide, so wide that it would be difficult to enforce. It ought to be possible on Report Stage to frame an amendment which would not be as wide but which would at least cover recreations such as swimming which are not covered at present by the definition. The EEC is considering the quality of water in which people swim. At the moment this Bill does not cover it at all. It might be more sensible really to define polluting matter in such a way that it would cover the EEC requirement.
I am most anxious to meet the request of Senator Robinson and, indeed, of any other Senator in every way possible. I have clearly indicated that the extension of the definition on the lines proposed could give rise to very many enforcement difficulties. I would be prepared to meet the Senator if the amendment provided did not include the terms safety, welfare or other legitimate uses. If the Senator agrees to such an amendment I would be prepared to put it down for the Report Stage and to tidy up the definition of polluting matter by including poisonous or noxious matter and deleting references to poisonous and noxious matter in sections 3, 12, 13, 14 and 16. If this would meet the Senator or any other Senator, I would be prepared to consider that for the Report Stage and have it rectified at that stage.
I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for coming a considerable way to meeting the purpose of this amendment. It is hard to consider all the possibilities of the latter part of the proposed amendment, removing the words "noxious matter" from the sections of the Bill in which it appears. The essential definition is the definition of polluting matter. If that is adequate there will be ample control of water pollution. The proposal of the Parliamentary Secretary could go a long way to broadening that definition to include, in particular, the emphasis on the recreational use. I would be prepared to withdraw this amendment in favour of a Government amendment on Report Stage.
I think we could agree on:
"or to render such waters harmful or detrimental to public health, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural or recreational uses."
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 3:
In subsection (1), page 3, line 11, to delete "mean".
This is a simple drafting amendment. The word "mean" is superfluous in the definition of tidal waters. I am accordingly advised that this amendment is necessary and desirable and I would ask the House to agree.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 4:
In subsection (1), line 42, to delete "may" and substitute "shall by order".
The Water Pollution Advisory Council envisaged in section 2 of this Bill is on the face of it a very anaemic, powerless and insecure body which may be brought into existence. It is my understanding that there is in practice an advisory body. I can see no difference between the advisory body in practice and such an anaemic statutory body. We should be concerned in legislation of this sort, in the machinery to enforce, safeguard and advise on legislation of this sort, to ensure that when we make provision for something called the Water Pollution Advisory Council it will genuinely be worth while and will be set up. When the Bill was being introduced in this House the Minister introducing it said that it would be set up. It is for that reason that the amendment which I put down makes that imperative on the Minister: the Minister "shall by Order" and therefore does not have discretion. I quite honestly think that we should delete this section altogether if it is going to stay as it is because it does not really improve the position from an ad hoc advisory body. We are deluding ourselves by giving it what sounds to be a relatively important title. The amendments which I shall move try to go further in creating a role and function and in giving a genuine and consultative power to the proposed advisory council.
Some of the better sections of this Bill are the sections which deal with sanction, where it specifies sanctions which do not exist and where it raises sanctions to the level of being genuinely deterrent. If such be necessary, it would seem that advice, rather than being available almost capriciously, should be required. There are two things involved. It appears to me generally that the entire concept of the control of pollution is being introduced. The Bill is satisfactory where it stops short of demand and makes suggestions rather than putting in "shall". What one may tend to create in the public mind is that the notion of pollution itself is a matter yet to be decided whereas we are well aware of the consequences of pollution across a number of heads as are other international bodies. I am only making this point once so that it need not be made again, that in general there is a case for strong language. What is the point of suggesting, "Well, the body could have advised the Minister and then the Minister could have"? It may be better to advert to the very real dangers which exist and move to a concept of managing dangers of pollution rather than accepting a notion that there may be pollution dangers in existence. I would make the point now that in this and in many other cases there is great credit due to those people who have sought to change the language, to make it stronger, rather than to make a weaker form of representation to the Minister of the day.
It is considered that "may" as used in the subsection is preferable. I want to assure the Senators that I have no objection whatever to the proposed amendment. If the Senators feel strongly about it. I certainly would be prepared to accept it provided that provision is made for the amendment of orders. The putting down of an amendment on Report Stage will be considered. I would be prepared to accept that. I have no very strong views on that. If the Senators feel strongly about it at Report Stage I will be prepared to meet their wishes.
Once again I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his willingness to accept this amendment. I might just say to him that it is in line with the provision in the Wildlife Bill for the establishment of a Wildlife Advisory Council. In the appropriate section of that Bill "shall by order" is the terminology used. This ensures that the desired objective of establishing a water pollution advisory council is effected and is required by the statute. For example, it could be raised on the adjournment of this House that a water pollution advisory council was not established. As the section stands at the moment the Seanad could not and nobody could ensure it. It would be desirable that the amendment be passed and I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to accept it. I do not mind whether it is at this Stage by Government amendment or on Report Stage.
I accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
To delete subsection (2) and insert the following new subsection:—
"(2) The Council may, either of its own volition or at the request of the Minister, make recommendations to the Minister in relation to any matter relevant to his functions or responsibilities concerning control of water pollution; it shall be consulted by the Minister prior to the exercise by the Minister of powers under sections 24, 25 or 26 of this Act and it shall advise him on any specific matter referred to it by the Minister in discharge of his functions and responsibilities under this Act."
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 also relate to the water pollution advisory council and try to give it a more defined role and the possibility of getting necessary information in order to discharge its role. The proposal is to delete the present subsection (2) which reads:
"The Council may advise the Minister in relation to any matter relevant to his functions or responsibilities concerning control of water pollution and shall advise him on any such matter referred to it by the Minister."
and to substitute a new subsection (2) and a new subsection (3).
Amendment No. 6 reads:
Before subsection (3) to insert a new subsection as follows:—
"(3) The Minister shall take such steps as he considers appropriate to keep the Council informed of matters relating to the control of water pollution which are, in his opinion, likely to assist the Council in performing the functions assigned to it by subsection (2) of this section."
One problem is to ensure that the advisory body gets adequate information in order to discharge its function. Another problem is to ensure that it is consulted, that it has a role to play. It is a consultative role but it must be the objective of this Bill in creating the machinery for the control of water pollution to ensure that an advisory council so established will be consulted.
The sections referred to where the amendment would make it mandatory on the Minister to consult an advisory council relate to the very significant and substantial new powers that the Minister would have under sections 24, 25 and 26, section 24 relating to water quality control authorities, section 25 relating to quality standards for water and so on, and section 26 relating to regulation of passage of vehicles. Obviously we will be considering these sections later on but the Minister has the power under section 24, after consulting the Minister for the Public Service, by order, to establish in respect of such areas, as specified in the order, a water quality control authority. The section specifies the functions of the water quality control authority. Surely before doing that the Minister should be obliged to consult the advisory body which has been established under this Act, the water pollution advisory council. Similarly under section 25, the Minister may, after consulting the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and any other Minister who appears to him to be interested, prescribed for the purpose of this Act quality standards for water, trade effluents, sewage effluents and standards in relation to methods of treatment of such effluents. If the water pollution advisory council is really representative of the expertise and experience in this field, surely it is a body which is entitled to be consulted and surely the Minister, in deciding to exercise powers under section 25 of the Act, should be required to consult this body and similarly in discharge of his powers under section 26 in restricting the use of certain vehicles. It would be hoped that the advisory council would be representative of expertise in that area.
As I have been explaining, the purpose of amendment No. 5 is to require the Minister to consult the advisory council when exercising specific powers under sections 24, 25 and 26. It also enables the council either of its own volition to make recommendations or requires it to respond to requests by the Minister for advice on specific matters. The following amendment which has been discussed together with it is the necessary section requiring that the Minister ensure that the council be properly and sufficiently informed on the matters relating to the control of water pollution which it will advise on.
Both amendments are adapted from similar provisions relating to the Wildlife Advisory Council which was established under the Wildlife Bill discussed in this House some weeks ago. The provisions strengthen the role of the advisory council and make it clear to the members of the council what their precise functions are and also go some way towards ensuring that the members of the advisory council would have the necessary information. Although it would be difficult in a wording of an amendment, I would have liked to have required that the Minister in establishing the Water Pollution Advisory Council be obliged to appoint as members of the council representatives of bodies who are interested in improving the environment, who are experts in a particular way. It would obviously be the intention of the Minister to appoint people with expertise and experience. It is helpful to have such a requirement written if possible into the Bill itself. It is very difficult to devise. I would have liked, if possible, in some way to try to set out a list of prescribed bodies which should be represented such as the prescribed bodies under section 21 of the Planning Act. The present section and the subsection which it is proposed to delete and replace by the first of these amendments makes it a very anaemic body indeed with no specific function and with no possibility of calling for information reinforced by a right to receive the information. What could well happen would be that the role of the Water Pollution Advisory Council would be a completely subsidiary one, that it would be a body with vague consultative powers which the Minister need never consult.
We should ensure in legislation of this kind where we are taking the step of establishing a water pollution advisory council that we give it precise functions in so far as we can, first, a right to be consulted where the Minister is exercising powers where, in line with all the other people he consults such as the Minister for the Public Service, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, he also consults and is obliged to consult the water pollution advisory council; and secondly, we should also give that council the statutory right to the sort of information and services which will be necessary for it to carry out its functions. It should be able to obtain the sort of information it wants from the Minister even if the particular information related to the activities of a State-sponsored body or some other agency.
I am not without sympathy for Senator Robinson's amendment but I would like to point out, while I agree in principle with the idea that the Water Pollution Advisory Council should have as much powers as possible within reason, it is purely an advisory council. Unless I misread Senator Robinson's amendment it seems to me that it places greater powers in the council than in the Minister. I quote from the amendment, subsection (2):
The Council may——
It has the alternative of either doing or not doing it.
——either of its own volition or at the request of the Minister.
In other words if the Minister makes a request to the advisory council it has the option of advising the Minister or not. That is giving too much power to an advisory body. It then goes on:
...it shall be consulted by the Minister prior to the exercise by the Minister of powers under sections 24, 25 or 26 ...
This makes it mandatory on the Minister to consult a purely advisory body. I would question that. I agree that it is most desirable that the Minister should consult and make as much use as possible of what I hope will be a representative body with experts on it who are interested in the whole question of water pollution. I would be rather reluctant to give it such rigid statutory powers. I would be opposed to giving it the right to refuse the Minister if the Minister made a request. It is going too far to give that sort of power to an advisory body.
Replying to Senator Russell it is clear in the proposed amendment that the council is and remains an advisory body. What the amendment tries to do is to be more specific about its precise functions and give it the opportunity through having access to information to discharge those functions properly. The wording, as I said, is adapted from the Government formulation of the Wildlife Advisory Council. The wording: "may, either of its own volition or at the request of the Minister, make recommendations" is precisely word for word what was accepted in this House as being appropriate for the Wildlife Advisory Council. I am not saying that that necessarily means it is appropriate for every advisory council but I think there is an analogy and similarity of function between the Water Pollution Advisory Council and the Wildlife Advisory Council.
The final sentence, again adapted from the text of the section of the Wildlife Bill states that the council shall advise the Minister on any specific matter referred to it by the Minister in the discharge of its functions and responsibilities under this Act. Therefore the council may make recommendations or they may not be in a position to make recommendations, but they shall advise him on any matter which he specifically refers to them. In that sense the Minister can ensure that the advisory council discharge their function of advising him on a specific matter. The present wording is very anaemic indeed under the section; it is very vague as to what the council would do and it is not clear that the Minister need consult them. If he does consult them they shall respond and offer advice but they have no power of their own volition to make recommendations. They have no right to be consulted, whereas the amendment would give them a right to be consulted in relation to the exercise of some of the more far-reaching ministerial powers. Sections 24, 25 and 26 are far-reaching ministerial powers under the Bill. Many of the other powers can be exercised by other bodies such as local authorities.
I confidently assure the Senator and the House that the fullest possible consultation will be made with the council. The Senator need not be in any doubt as to the interest and enthusiasm of members of the council. The Water Pollution Advisory Council was set up by the Minister. They held their first meeting on 7th February, 1975. All relevant interests, including industrial, agricultural, fishery, professional, scientific, voluntary and local authority interests, in addition to Government Departments and semi-State bodies concerned are represented on the council. The council is composed of members who are completely dedicated to their work. It may be of interest to the House to know that the membership of the Water Pollution Advisory Council includes representatives of the Confederation of Irish Industry, the Irish Farmers' Association, the National Youth Council of Ireland, the County and City Managers' Association, the Department of Local Government, the Trout Anglers' Federation of Ireland, An Foras Talúntais, the National Science Council, An Foras Forbartha, the Department of Health, the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, the Institute of Engineers of Ireland, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, the General Council of County Councils, the Inland Fisheries Trust, the Electricity Supply Board, the Office of Public Works, the Department of Education, the Irish Federation of Sea Anglers, the Institute of Chemistry of Ireland, An Taisce, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association and the Industrial Development Authority. When we see members of State, semi-State departments and important national and voluntary associations of the highest expertise represented on an advisory council of this kind we can understand their keen interest displayed in their work.
Naturally, it will be to the Minister's advantage to enter into consultation with them in order to seek their advice and co-operation. This is the Minister's intention. If it were otherwise, there would be no need to establish the council. I have pleasure in giving the House an undertaking that the council will be consulted— that is the purpose for which they were established—prior to the exercise of any powers under sections 24, 25 and 26. In view of this undertaking I would ask Senator Robinson to withdraw her amendment. I have met most of the personnel of the council and I have no hesitation in saying that they are all dedicated personnel who are at the Minister's disposal, purely on a voluntary basis, to give him their best advice and counsel. There is no doubt but that the Minister, on every possible occasion will be only too happy to avail of the pool of intellectual guidance offered by the members of the council.
The Parliamentary Secretary has been very conciliatory and helpful to the House and this may make my comments seem a little ungrateful but he knows that assurances given in this House, while validly given, have no legal substance. If the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to assure us that the Minister shall consult the advisory council before exercising powers under sections 24, 25 and 26 then why not write that into the particular sections? Then in 30 years' time, when there is a less interested Minister or Parliamentary Secretary trying to take decisions in exercising the functions under sections 24, 25 and 26, the advisory council can say: "Look, before you do that we have a right to be consulted; we have a view on that which may be slightly different from the Minister's view". I was very happy to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that he sees the validity of consultation and the necessity to use the expertise there. If there are expert, concerned and willing persons who are doing it at present as a non-statutory body to whom we are about to give statutory authority, then I would still be in favour of—although that is a matter for the House— putting it on a statutory footing where it was clear that it was the intention of the House in its legislation, and not just the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary recorded in the Official Report, that the advisory council would have the right to be consulted in relation to the exercise of specific functions and powers; that they would have the right of their own volition to make recommendations and would, as provided in the second amendment have access to the sort of information which in the Minister's opinion they would require in order to perform their functions under the section.
The Senator appears to have certain doubts about the validity of the undertaking I gave.
No doubts at all about the validy of the Parliamentary Secretary's undertaking but I am concerned about the future, in ten years' time.
Needless to say, I am not looking forward to the future myself. Amendment No. 6 is unnecessary because it can be taken that the Minister will continue to ensure that the council will be kept fully informed of all matters in relation to control of water pollution. It might be of interest to the House to know that the existing council, which has been set up in advance of this legislation, has not voiced any complaints in this respect.
I repeat the undertaking which I have already given that the council will be kept fully informed of all the activities and that the advice and guidance will be sought. If Senator Robinson is very determined on this issue there is no reason for her anxiety, nor is there any reason for the anxiety of any Member of the House in regard to this. I am prepared to accept amendment No. 6 which reads:
(3) The Minister shall take such steps as he considers appropriate to keep the Council informed of matters relating to the control of water pollution which are, in his opinion, likely to assist the Council in performing the functions assigned to it by subsection (2) of this section.
I would have no objection to that. Naturally I would have to introduce a Report Stage revised amendment. I am sure that is as far as I can go to meet the Senator's wishes in this regard and I would ask her to agree on that.
I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for once again going a considerable way to meeting the objective in these two amendments by saying that the second of them, relating to access to information and ensuring that the advisory council would be informed of all matters relating to the control of water pollution, is acceptable. In the circumstances I would meet him half way and look at the very explicit asssurances that he has given of the fact that the advisory council shall be consulted and in particular prior to any exercise of the Minister's function under sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Bill, and therefore I will not be pressing this amendment.
I will agree to No. 6.
Yes, I understood that.
Is the Senator quite happy about that?
I am happy that we can agree on No. 6 and that the Parliamentary Secretary is not agreeing on No. 5.
I have given that guarantee that there will be consultation. That is the purpose of the council.
My qualification of that is that it is only an undertaking.
All right, on No. 5 I will consider at Report Stage a revised amendment on the lines of No. 5—separate provisions in sections 24, 25 and 26 regarding consultation. Is that agreed?
I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
Before subsection (3) to insert a new subsection as follows:—
"(3) The Minister shall take such steps as he considers appropriate to keep the Council informed of matters relating to the control of water pollution which are, in his opinion, likely to assist the Council in performing the functions assigned to it by subsection (2) of this section."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
To delete subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6) and insert a new subsection as follows:—
"(3) The Minister may by order, made with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service in so far as it relates to expenses for members of the Council, provide for such one or more of the following as he considers appropriate:
(a) the constitution of the Council,
(b) the period for which and the terms and conditions upon and subject to which the members of the Council are to hold office,
(c) the manner in which a member of the Council may resign from office and the manner and circumstances in which such a member may be removed from office,
(d) the business and procedure of the Council,
(e) the payment of expenses to members of the Council,
(f) any matter which is ancillary or incidental to any of the foregoing."
Amendment No. 7 again relates to the composition in terms of reference of this Water Pollution Advisory Council. The amendment would replace subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the existing section of the Bill which again undermine the independence of the proposed advisory council by leaving the composition of it entirely to the discretion of the Minister in terms of reference and so on. The section provides:
(3) The Council shall consist of such number of persons appointed for such period as the Minister thinks fit.
so that the size of the council is left to the Minister's discretion.
(4) The Minister shall from time to time nominate one member of the Council to act as chairman thereof.
Again the Minister can control from time to time who will be chairman.
(5) The Minister may at any time remove any member (including the chairman) of the Council from office.
If one wants a genuinely independent advisory council then I would submit that it is undermining that body to have any member or the chairman removable without cause shown at the complete discretion of the Minister. Subsection (6) just provides for the payment of expenses to members of the council.
I submit that the form used in relation to the Wildlife Advisory Council would be preferable and it is precisely that format that is incorporated in the next amendment which does reinforce a little the independence and status of the advisory council and therefore gives it a genuine statutory being. The problem with the wording of the section as it stands at the moment, as I said when moving the first of these amendments, is that there is so little difference between the Water Pollution Advisory Council as it exists at the moment—in anticipation of this Bill— and its being given statutory authority, in the present wording of section 2 and in particular the subsections. The purpose of the amendment is to provide more expressly for the terms and conditions of the members of the advisory council. It provides:
(3) The Minister may by order, made with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service in so far as it relates to expenses for members of the Council, provide for such one or more of the following as he considers appropriate:
(a) the constitution of the Council,
(b) the period for which and the terms and conditions upon and subject to which the members of the Council are to hold office,
(c) the manner in which a member of the Council may resign from office and the manner and circumstances in which such a member may be removed from office,
(d) the business and procedure of the Council,
(e) the payment of expenses to members of the Council,
(f) any matter which is ancillary or incidental to any of the foregoing.
This may seem to introduce an over bureaucracy into the operation of the council. If it is genuinely going to perform the important functions in relation to the control of water pollution which I envisage, if it is going to be a body which brings together the type of expertise which the Parliamentary Secretary is outlining, then it would be preferable to have clarity about the constitution and membership and functions of that body. It should not be left in the discretion of a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary for the time being. Obviously I have not to stress that this is not in any way a reflection on the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister for Local Government. It is setting up a particular council for all time or conceivable time until there is a new Bill either modifying or repealing the provisions, so I submit that it would be preferable to constitute the council in a more formal way on an analogy with the way in which the Wildlife Advisory Council was constituted.
I have already agreed that the council shall be set up by Order. When the council is set up it should be borne in mind that it will be an advisory and not an executive body. It will be composed, as I have indicated, of persons in a purely voluntary capacity, giving their time for the conduct of their own research for the purpose of the views and opinions which they were about to express for the guidance of the Minister.
The existing subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6) provide for all that is necessary in relation to the constitution and membership of the council, the nomination of chairman, the removal of members from office and the payment of expenses. There is no need to provide for the manner in which members may resign. If a member wishes to resign, or indeed to resign from any board or body of which he is a member, I do not think there is any necessity to legislate for the manner in which he should tender his resignation. For that reason it is best that we do not tie up the council in chains of legislation that will make it difficult for them to do their work.
The business and procedure of the council would be best left to the council itself. The council is comprised— we hope all future councils will be comprised—of outstanding intelligent personnel who are deeply devoted to the tasks and assignments they must undertake as members of the advisory council. I do not think it is right for us to legislate for them as to how they should do their business. It could be argued that if we are going to provide ways and means by which members should tender their resignations if they so have to resign, there would have to be a code of rules drawn up on which their agenda should be based for discussions at council meetings.
I ask the Senator not to press this amendment because I can see a problem arising. The problem is that the council must be seen to be independent. The council must be left to regulate its own business, draw up its own agenda, discuss its own affairs, and make its own recommendations. For that reason I would ask that the council be left to carry on its own affairs and business in the highly efficient manner in which a responsible council would conduct its affairs. For that reason I ask the Senator not to press this amendment. It is one which I cannot possibly accept and I have given the House the reasons. My objection to it is mainly based on the fact that the entire business, the agenda, the procedure of the council will be best left to the council without further interference.
It would be in the interest of strengthening the work and the activities of the council that the council be left to be the masters of their own business and the best judges as to how they conduct procedure. I ask the Senator not to press this amendment which I honestly feel is unreasonable. For example, there is no need to provide for the manner in which members may resign. Again, the Senator will see that there is no need for any member to have regulations laid down on which his resignation is to be based. That is a matter entirely for himself or herself. It is best and in the interest of the advisory council in the long run that they be left to carry out their own procedure in their own way and with the least possible hindrance from anybody.
When I was moving this amendment I said that it is taken verbatim from the provisions relating to the Wildlife Advisory Council and the Parliamentary Secretary is really accusing the Minister for Lands of being unreasonable in the way in which he constituted the Wildlife Advisory Council. We are at one in wanting an independent and self-reliant advisory council which will give the best advice in circumstances. To some extent the Parliamentary Secretary has a point in relation to paragraph (d) which relates to the regulation of business and procedure of the council. I agree it is better for the council to regulate its own business and procedure. Having been given an opportunity to argue that this amendment makes precise all that is not precise in the present section of the Bill, which allows the Minister, or Parliamentary Secretary, to decide the size of the advisory council, we do not know if it is going to be a council of ten members, 30 members, five members or 60 members at any point in time. It is entirely at the discretion of the Minister. Nobody has any tenure in it: anybody appointed to it is appointed only for so long as the Minister wishes. The Minister may remove any member, or the chairman, at any time.
Again, this is no reflection on the present holders of office; it is a concern about the sort of structures we establish. It might be that in three years' time, or in 50 years' time, the Water Pollution Advisory Council would feel very strongly about something and give advice about it but the Minister would say, "thank you very much, that is you removed, I now have a new advisory council".
I propose to withdraw the amendment now and reintroduce an amendment on Report Stage to delete the reference to the business procedure of the council and hope that the Miniser might take a view on it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 8 and 11 are cognate and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 8:
In subsection (4), page 4, lines 30 and 31, to delete "or the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries." and insert ", the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries or any other person.".
The amendments will clarify the entitlement of any person or such persons as the ESB, the Inland Fisheries Trust, private fishery owners and so on to take prosecutions under sections 3 and 4. The desirability of making an amendment on these lines was brought to notice by a number of interests, including the Water Pollution Advisory Council, who, after discussing the matter and by way of giving the Minister the benefit of their knowledge expressed the opinion that amendments of this kind were desirable. I strongly recommend the amendments.
I welcome these two similar amendments brought in by the Parliamentary Secretary. It is desirable to broaden the scope of persons who can bring prosecutions under this section and one could think of harbour authorities being such a body who ought to be in a position to bring prosecutions.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, betwen lines 31 and 32, to insert a new subsection as follows:—
"(5) Where a complaint about the entry of polluting matter to local waters has been made by two or more residents of the locality to the local authority, that local authority shall investigate the complaint so made and if necessary shall prosecute as provided in subsection (4) of this section".
I drafted and tabled this amendment before I was aware of the preceding amendments that we have agreed to. To some extent some of the intention of my amendment is catered for by the Parliamentary Secretary's amendments because it is open now to any other persons to bring a prosecution. At the same time it is not entirely realistic to expect that individuals affected by polluting matter or by the activity of others can get up and start a prosecution. It requires a very high degree of motivation. It requires, perhaps, that the neighbours be on very bad relations, indeed, with one another. It would be desirable to have a possibility of a complaint being made by two or more residents of the locality to the local authority and then an onus on the local authority to investigate the complaints and, if necessary, the local authority initiate a prosecution. There is a similar sort of provision under section 121 of the Public Health Ireland Act, 1878. To some extent this would ensure that persons living in the locality would be encouraged to play a watchdog role but it would mean that one would not be setting private neighbour against private neighbour by encouraging one neighbour actually to prosecute the other rather than make a complaint to a local authority. The local authority would investigate it in the circumstances and then bring the prosecution. There ought to be an onus on the local authority to investigate and, therefore, the amendment provides that where a complaint about the entry of polluting matter to local waters has been made by two or more residents of the locality to the local authority that local authority shall investigate the complaints so made and, if necessary, shall prosecute, as provided in subsection (4) of this section. The local authority, having an obligation to investigate, have the discretion in the circumstances as to whether to prosecute or not. It would not be desirable that the local authority would have to prosecute if any complaint were made. The appropriate balance would be that the local authority should be obliged to investigate a complaint lodged by two or more local residents but would have a discretion in all the circumstances as to whether to prosecute.
I do not doubt the sincerity of the Senator in moving this amendment but as one who has been a member of a local authority for the greater part of my lifetime I feel that to accept this would be placing on local authorities an unreasonable obligation to investigate all complaints made by two or more residents, irrespective of the circumstances. Everybody knows that on a number of issues affecting local authorities they are obliged to investigate complaints of one kind or another. From my experience and long membership of a local authority I know that quite an amount of local authority time is spent investigating complaints for which there are no real grounds and foundation. In this case, for example, if we were to have a complaint regarding pollution which resulted in the killing of fish the Senator might consider it unreasonable to ask a local authority to investigate such a complaint because the proper body to investigate such a complaint would be the Board of Conservators, in consultation with the local authority.
This is an unreasonable obligation on a local authority and for that reason I ask the Senator to give serious consideration to the withdrawal of the amendment. It would be wrong to have an obligation laid down by Statute on the local authority to investigate a complaint which might be groundless and not immediately appropriate to the local authority. For that reason I seriously ask the Senator not to press this amendment because of the unreasonable obligation it would place on local authorities. This amendment was proposed before official amendments Nos. 8 and 11 were put down. I would point out that it is covered by the fact that reference is made to "any other person" who may now prosecute for an offence. This is preferable to a provision which would give rise to imaginary or nuisance complaints.
The amendments moved by the Parliamentary Secretary broaden the category of person who can initiate a prosecution and that meets at least half of the situation. I have to bow to the experience of the Parliamentary Secretary of involvement in local authorities. The amendment sought to secure—I will not be pressing it—that a private individual, instead of having the onus of initiating a prosecuton, would have a local authority to complain to and if there were more than one complainant that complaint would be investigated. I imagine in practice if the complaint is made to the appropriate local body which can prosecute under the Act it will be investigated. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Subsection (3) should be deleted from the Bill. It says that it shall be a good defence to a prosecution under this section to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the person charged took all reasonable care to prevent the entry prohibited under subsection (1). In court, ignorance of the law is not a defence. Similarly, I do not think that a plea that an accidental discharge took place which could be highly injurious to fish-life and to the quality of the waters involved should be allowed, and that the person responsible should be allowed off scott free in court. It is far too wide. It is a device for letting people who infringe the laws off the hook and renders the Bill ineffective to a considerable degree.
Subsection (3) provides that it shall be a good defence to a prosecution for the person charged to prove to the satisfaction of the court that he took all reasonable care to prevent the entry prohibited under subsection (1). I have no doubt that every measure will be taken to satisfy the court that very genuine steps were taken to prevent it. If, for instance, a farmer, in accordance with good agricultural practice and despite taking all normal precautions, causes polluting matter to enter any waters, he will be protected from prosecution by this provision. I do not see the dangers the Senator sees in the provision. If he feels he should put down an amendment on Report Stage, it can be considered then.
On the point raised by Seantor Deasy, I am in sympathy with his desire not to have any unnecessary loopholes created where people can avoid sanctions and prohibitions under the section. There are two choices open in this type of provision. The first would be to provide in subsection 3 (1), that subject to subsection (5) a person shall not wilfully or negligently cause or permit any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to enter waters and the person when prosecuted in court would prove that they did not do it, wilfully or negligently. This, in my view, is slightly stronger than the formula of prohibiting wilful or negligent causing of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to enter waters because there is a prohibition. The only way you can defend yourself is by establishing, that you took all reasonable steps, as in subsection (3), which provides:
it shall be a good defence to a prosecution under the section to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the person charged took all reasonable steps....
That means that the onus is on the defendant to prove his defence in an active way, to establish that he took all reasonable care. In my view, that is a better balance than to provide that a person "shall not cause wilfully or negligently" because the prosecution must prove that the noxious matter that fell into the water was done wilfully or negligently.
I certainly share the concern that this should not be a loophole, that it would not be used to evade the main prohibition of the entry of polluting matter, which is one of the primary purposes of this Bill. Depending on the degree of its enforcement it is better that the section be worded in this way. I do not think it would be possible for the reasons the Parliamentary Secretary gave to have an absolute prohibition because then there could be a considerable number of innocent parties who accidentally, and where there was absolutely no fault or liability, caused polluting matter to enter the water. The wording of the section is all right. It will now depend on the degree of enforcement, monitoring and scrutiny.
It will really depend on the cases put forward to the court. Naturally, we cannot prescribe to the court what they should or should not do. That will depend on the evidence submitted. The section is desirable. There is an identical section in the legislation in Northern Ireland which is working satisfactorily. I do not think there are any grounds for the fears expressed by Senator Deasy.
As Senator Robinson stated, it depends on how assiduously the authorities pursue the matter. Subsection (5) (b) reads:
...entry to tidal waters of any matter from vessels, from apparatus for transferring any matter to or from vessels, or from marine structure;
If polluting matter is spilled while a cargo is being loaded onto, or discharged from, the vessel, will the people responsible for the loading or discharging be exempt from prosecution?
This subsection exempts from prohibition in subsection (1) certain discharges which are proposed to be controlled elsewhere in the Bill. I can assure the Senator that this would be a matter completely and entirely for the Department and the Minister for Transport and Power.
Unfortunately the Department do not take an active interest, as far as I can see, in the loading or unloading of ships. It is common to see fertilisers, or materials likely to be noxious, being spilt in a haphazard manner as they are being loaded or unloaded. I do not think this gives sufficient safeguard.
A Bill is being prepared to deal with marine dumping and will be introduced by the Minister for Transport and Power. The Senator will have an opportunity, under that Bill, to deal with the problem he now has in mind.
You cannot have people from the Departments of Transport and Power or Industry and Commerce at every small port in the country, and there are at least 100 ports where ships can discharge and load. I doubt if the officials appear anywhere except at the very major ports.
I am sure the Minister will bear that in mind.
In what way would a farmer be protected if he spread pig slurry on his land and the soil could not absorb it, and there was an overflow into an adjoining river or a lake? Is there anything in the Bill to cover a case of a farmer putting an excessive dose of artificial manure on his land?
Subsection (3) reads:
It shall be a good defence to a prosecution under this section to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the person charged took all reasonable care to prevent the entry prohibited under subsection (1).
As I have already pointed out, if a farmer who, in accordance with good agricultural practice and despite taking all normal precautions, causes polluting matter to enter into any waters, he shall be protected from prosecution by this provision. So long as he can prove that he has taken all necessary precautions and can prove it satisfactorily, he need have no fears.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 14 are cognate and may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 10:
In subsection (5), line 42, after "made" to insert "or may not be made."
The purpose of this amendment is to broaden the scope of the licensing power of the local authority by allowing the licence to be framed in a negative sense. In subsection (5) of section 4, it is provided:
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), conditions attached to a licence under this section may—
(a) relate to—
(i) the nature, composition, temperature, volume, rate, method of treatment and location of a discharge, the periods during which a discharge may be made, the effect of a discharge on receiving waters and the design and construction of outlets for a discharge;
The purpose of the amendment would be to provide not only that the licence could have conditions for the periods during which a discharge may or may not be made. It might be appropriate, in particular circumstances, that the licence be in a negative sense. In other words, the discharge may not be made between the hours of 12 and 2 on weekdays, instead of saying it may be made between a whole lot of hours. In the interest of facilitating the licensing authority, so that there can be sophisticated control both of times and forms of discharge, the local authority should be given power in a negative as well as a positive sense.
The amendments do not add anything to the existing power. Under the subsection as drafted conditions attached to a licence may set out the periods during which a discharge may not be made. If the Senator feels very strongly on this issue, I would certainly agree to accept her amendments. I can assure her that the amendments do not add anything to the existing power, but if she feels strongly about them, I have no objection to accepting them.
I think it adds clarity to the local authority attaching the conditions. I accept that the Parliamentary Secretary got an expert Parliamentary draftsman's view on it but as one reads it, the periods during which discharge may be made, means, as far as I am concerned, that you may discharge between the hours of 6 and 8 or 5 and 10, or whatever it is. That is a positive licence to discharge. It is not clear from the wording of the section that it is also open to the local authority to say the periods during which a discharge may not be made. That can only do it if it is made clear what periods a discharge may be made, then obviously in the other period a discharge may not be made. Depending on the type of discharge, he may be setting out very long conditions when setting out the positive hours he may discharge, where the formula could be much shorter and achieve the same objective if it were open to local authorities to say "you may not discharge during a particular period". The Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to accept the amendment which I think adds clarification because it instead of saying that you may discharge between the hours of 5 and 8 on weekdays and 9 and 10 on weekends, and you may not discharge between particular hours on a particular day, it could be a much neater and clearer formula, and better in the public interest, that it be very clear that a person may not discharge between certain hours, as opposed to "may discharge" during a particular time.
I have no objections.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 11:
In subsection (9), page 6, lines 33 and 34, to delete "or the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries" and insert ", the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries or any other person".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I was asking a question regarding local authorities. They grant the licences. From whom do they acquire a licence? In other words, do they need a licence if they happen to be polluters—and many of them are?
The position under this Bill with regard to discharges from public sewers is that while they will not be licensable under section 4, the Minister will have power to make regulations under section 25 prescribing standards for such discharges or for waters to which such discharges are made either generally or in particular cases. Where such regulations are made, there will be a statutory duty on the sanitary authority or authorities concerned to take steps as soon as possible to ensure that the effluent does not contravene the regulations. Most local authorities have already taken precautions by bringing their treatment schemes up to date. There are a number of proposals from many local authorities and when financial circumstances improve I am sure local authorities will be undertaking work of this kind. In the case of all modern sewer schemes, and those sanctioned at the present time, steps are taken to ensure that there are sufficient precautions and treatment services made available to prevent any form of serious pollution. Local authorities are presently aware of their obligations in this matter, and in so far as is possible, are endeavouring to meet the requirements.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is satisfied that the fines and penalties under this section are sufficient to control the situation. I am aware they are a good deal greater than the present fines and penalties available, but it seems to me that, in particular, a period of imprisonment may be rather unreal if the pollutant is a company, or an employee of a company and it would be unfair in many ways to the individual employee to imprison him. We are really about the fines for contravention of the section. The maximum on summary conviction is fixed for constitutional reasons at £250. Is it adequate to fix the maximum at £5,000 if the pollution has caused several hundreds of thousands of pounds' damage, or if it is very serious and detrimental to either animal health, fish and so on? We should seriously consider that we are fixing the maximum fine that can be imposed. I am aware that there is also a fine of £500 per day for continuing offences of polluting. It may be that the offence itself is not continuing, but the damage done has been very dramatic and the penalty is not significant for the polluting company. One could think of a large company, for which this is just a pinprick, which had caused very serious damage through its polluting. We are fixing the maximum which a court could impose. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary for his view on whether the fines are adequate.
As the Senator is aware, as well as a fine of £5,000 it is a fine of £500 a day.
If there is a continuing offence, but there may not be.
I agree that the fines are a considerable improvement on the position as it exists at the moment and they will certainly be a deterrent.
In the event of imprisonment for a company that contravenes it, who has to go to prison? Would it be the secretary of the company?
The courts would decide who was responsible and who was to be imprisoned.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Government amendment No. 12:
In subsection (2), page 8, line 50, to delete "the granting or refusing of a licence" and insert "the granting or revoking of a licence".
This is simply a drafting amendment. The term "revoking" is more appropriate than "refusing" since the licence will already have been either granted or refused by the local authority in a case which is the subject of an appeal. Where a third party appeal is made in the case of a licence which is being granted, the question of revocation may arise. For that reason I ask the House to agree to this simple drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I had intended to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it would be possible to appeal to the new planning board to be established instead of to the Minister but I see the Parliamentary Secretary has a later amendment down and presumably we could deal with that question then. My question refers to some appeals under section 8, and perhaps it will be possible to discuss this when we consider section 21.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 9 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Government amendment No. 13:
In subsection (8), page 12, line 20, to delete "preparation" and insert "making".
This is a simple drafting amendment. Making, revision or replacement of a water quality management plan will be a reserved function exercisable by the elected members of a local authority. They will be concerned in the making, revision or replacement of a plan prepared by officers of the local authority.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed : "That section 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I am looking for clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary. I have read the section several times and I do not have experience of work on a local authority, but it seems to me to be a very vague section. It is very difficult to make out exactly what is meant by "water quality management planning". I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would elaborate on just precisely what is envisaged here and what the local authority will do.
Local authorities will have a discretion in regard to the making of water quality management plans but must make a plan if required to do so by the Minister. A river catchment may extend over a functional area of a number of local authorities and it is necessary that plans be subject to scrutiny by the Minister in order to ensure uniformity of approach within catchments. He may also require—subsection (7)—two or more local authorities to co-ordinate their plans and to make joint plans. It is envisaged that initially plans will be made only for the more important river catchments. Water quality management plans will provide the basis for overall quality management of catchments or groups of catchments. Section 4 (3) (b) requires local authorities to have regard to the plans' objectives in deciding whether or not to issue licences for discharge. Mainly that will be at the local authority's discretion.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary confident that these plans will, in fact, come into effect, or is this a plan to create a whole area of no plans at all? We had previous experience of a lack of fulfilment of an objective.
We expect those plans to be made for the major catchment areas.
Within what time scale does the Parliamentary Secretary envisage it?
We will not lose any time when we get the legislation through. We can be working on it right away.
Do I gather that if a waterway passes through several local authority areas, water quality management control will be set up to deal with that waterway? Is that the purpose of this section?
There will be a plan prepared for the entire waterway, irrespective of how many counties or what regional boundaries are involved.
That is highly desirable.
Yes.
Some rivers go through, maybe, a dozen or two dozen local authority areas. Unless you have such a management committee, I do not see how you could control pollution in that waterway.
A plan will be prepared and put into operation.
Could I ask a question following the generous response of the Parliamentary Secretary earlier on to the substitution of the word "shall" by "may", for example, in section 2 of the Bill? Would he be agreeable to its replacement in this and later sections? What I have in mind is this: I can appreciate that when this important piece of legislation becomes law, unless local authorities feel more and more responsible towards anti-pollution measures in general, there may be a period necessary for local authorities to develop such an awareness. The word "shall" in many cases could be inserted rather than the word "may", in other words, giving it a greater force. The Parliamentary Secretary agreed to something similar earlier.
This is not similar. On section 15 a local authority may, and if so directed by the Minister shall make a water quality management plan for any waters. The Minister will give a direction and the direction will be obeyed. There is no "may" or "shall" attached to that.
I take the point. The only thing is the spirit. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me. Where a water management plan will eventually emerge, it looks from this section as if it will emerge under the inspired requirement of the Minister rather than the local authority as a matter of course preparing it.
I want to offer an opinion on the section. Looking at the near history of local authorities and their attitude towards pollution and water quality management plans, one would expect them to prepare such plans very rarely. There is almost a pessimism about the section. It is accepting the situation that it may be likely—but it is probably very unlikely—that a local authority will bother to prepare a plan and the Minister might find it very necessary, because of the provisions earlier, to go along and require them. The section may be accurate in that respect, but pessimistic in so far as it accurately adverts to the lack of spirit that there has been among local authorities to prepare such plans.
The Senator will agree that this is an additional power to ensure co-ordination and co-operation between a number of local authorities. There are so many catchment areas that the Minister could not direct that a plan be made for all at the same time. We hope that local authorities will take their responsibilities in a responsible manner and will prepare the plans on the direction of the Minister. The Senator's fears are unnecessary. Local authorities will act responsibly and will prepare their plans in consultation with other authorities concerned within the same catchment.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 14:
In subsection (4), line 9, after "made" to add "or may not be made".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 16, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
In view of the fact that bathing beaches will have to be licensed and proven pollution-free, is there any provision to ensure that local authorities will have the necessary facilities to treat sewage being discharged on to beaches?
The Senator can be assured that the Minister will have the power to lay down standards which will be obeyed by the local authorities.
Therefore, the House is given an assurance that local authorities will take precautions, where necessary, and that treatment facilities will be adequate?
Any responsible local authority will take this matter very seriously.
At all times I have opposed the idea that the local authority should be the licensing body in regard to the emission of effluent. Local authorities themselves must come under scrutiny. It seems they are a law unto themselves. This is a retrograde step which may defeat the purpose of the Bill to an alarming degree.
First, the House is aware that the sanitary authority are the county councils, the urban councils and the corporations. I doubt that they have the capacity to carry out this type of work. Local authorities provide a wide range of services and their resources are stretched to the limit. I fail to see how they will be able to operate this licensing system in a satisfactory manner. I have said this before and I repeat it now, the people who should do this type of work are not the local authorities but the boards of conservators maybe not as they are constituted at present but with some adjustments. Certainly, the local authorities cannot do a satisfactory job.
I strongly object to the concept that local authorities should be able to emit effluent without having a licence to do it. People have to go to local authorities to get a licence but the local authorities can be the source of much pollution and need not have licences. They can designate certain waters into which they can emit effluent. If that is practised on a large scale—and it may be by some local authorities—the whole purpose of the Bill will be defeated. I have the gravest reservations about this section, particularly in regard to the sanitary authority acting as a licensing body. They should be as firmly under the control of the Department of Local Government as any other industry or organisation.
I agree with Senator Deasy's point and will add a little to it. Having read the Planning and Development Bill and this Bill, I am not sure of the extent that water is protected from agricultural effluent, particularly the modern kind of agribusiness effluent. Even if one were to grant that water had been protected from that kind of effluent, from irresponsible business usage or industrial usage and from other kinds of irresponsibility, it would appear that the sanitary authorities are, as Senator Deasy has pointed out, not the most appropriate bodies.
I have some minor points to add to this. In the Bill, frequent reference is made to "as may be possible". The phrase "where resources are available" is also used. When legislation involving expenditure is introduced, the plea that money is not available is frequently made. Therefore, any local authorty will be free to suggest that it lacks resources or expertise. It can use any one of these excuses. That is the case even if it were the best authority in the world. However, one must look at outside opinion about local authorities' activities. Such objective opinions as exist have listed local authorities as among the major polluters of water. Therefore, even on the general principle of their being the appropriate licensing authority, it is difficult to be satisfied. Maybe there will be a massive injection of capital from central funds to local authorities to enable them to become involved in activities such as monitoring techniques, the quality of water and so on. I am merely speaking about the situation as it exists. Local authorities stand indicted by objective evidence as major polluters. Those people who are ranked with them in the same report may now be curbed by licence by one of their fellow polluters.
In addition, even if one were to accept that they had to do a total about-face, there are sufficient escape provisions within the instrument to allow them to escape. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has something in mind because I know that this point has been made before. It has been made in a number of comments in both the public press and by interested bodies, and it has been made here again this afternoon by Senator Deasy.
I have listened to previous speakers who have made some excellent points. However, local authorities are very responsible bodies and have been elected by the people. They provide a system of local government as well as performing many other functions. They are responsible to the people. It is probably correct to say that local authorities have been responsible for pollution in the past, but the local authority of which I am a member and other neighbouring ones have in recent years become aware of the tourist potential of certain areas. Regional tourist boards have been established and efforts have been made to attract visitors from overseas. There are tidy-town competitions and various other community activities in which the local authorities have played an important role. Each local authority in the Midland Regional Tourist Board area pays an annual contribution from the rates in order to promote tourism in the area. Although we may be critical of local authorities, they are the elected representatives. If they get grants from the Department that is all the better. I feel that they would be more suitable than a board of conservators, which would deal primarily with the protection of fish stocks. There are other forms of pollution.
I agree with Senator Higgins. I made the same point previously. A large amount of money would be required to cure pollution and I cannot see where this can be found locally. The money should be made available from central funds.
I am concerned about beaches. The Kerry County Council investigated the cost of a small treatment unit and found it would be at least £1 million, so that the point made by Senator Higgins is valid. If we are to tackle this problem, money will have to be made available from central funds. We are now saying that local authorities are the greatest polluters and we all see it. We see raw sewage on beaches. We will be facing the problem within the next two or three years of having to licence beaches. I can forsee the closing of most of our beaches.
I want to assure Senator Ahearne that, as far as beaches are concerned, we will have no trouble complying with EEC standards.
That is a sweeping statement.
I have no doubt that we will be able to comply with the EEC standards in this regard. On the whole question of whether the local authority is the right and proper authority for licensing, we dealt fully with this matter on the Second Reading. At that time I clearly demonstrated, and I understood that I had the support and approval of the House then, that the local authorities would be the right and proper authorities for the purposes of this Bill. County and county borough councils will be the licensing authorities for the purpose of the section which we are discussing now.
It would not be sensible to provide that local authorities should license discharges from their own sewers. If such discharges were to be licensed the licences would have to be issued by some other body. The setting up of a system of licensing by the Minister of discharges from local authority sewers is not considered necessary for a number of reasons. The Minister exercises financial control over the water and sewerage programme of local authorities. In the exercise of such control he can and does ensure that all new sewerage schemes are equipped with whatever treatment facilities are needed so that the discharge does not give rise to pollution in the receiving waters. All sewerage schemes provided in recent years—and I have already referred to this area today—are so equipped. Therefore, discharges from new sewers will be subject to these new requirements.
With regard to discharges from existing sewerage systems, which may be giving rise to pollution problems, the main limiting factor in having improvement and remedial works carried out is financial. There is no lack of willingness or, indeed, no lack of concern on the part of local authorities to put their own house in order. Every local authority is anxious that the treatment facilities available for all the sewerage schemes within the county should be of the highest possible standard. I have never seen any unwillingness on the part of local authorities to ensure that this would be so.
Local authorities have been most anxious, particularly in recent years, to see that their own house was in order. Improvement works have been carried out in recent years to many of the older schemes which were causing, or contributing to pollution, and further works of this nature are in progress. It might be wise to remind the House that capital expenditure by local authorities on the provision of treatment works is running at an estimated £3 million per year. A recent survey showed that there were a total of 43 sewerage systems giving rise to unsatisfactory conditions in receiving waters. Remedial works are already in progress in 12 of these systems. The Minister will have power under section 25 of this Bill to prescribe standards for discharge from local authority sewers and for waters into which such discharges are made. It is better that the Minister should have that power. The Minister will be in a position to take a completely independent and impartial view. He will have advisers and it is right and proper that the Minister should have that authority. I have no doubt that the Minister for Local Government will exercise that authority.
Where such standards are assessed the local authority concerned will be duty bound to ensure that these standards are complied with and I have no doubt that the Minister will ensure that certain standards are upheld and maintained and that he will follow that up to ensure that his direction will be complied with. For the information of Senators, as Senator Ahearne rightly said when she was dealing with the question of beaches, many of our sewerage schemes will call for very substantial investments. A very substantial sum of money will be required if every sewerage scheme is to have proper treatment facilities. The capital expenditure on water and sewerage schemes since 1972/73, and the allocations for 1976 are as follows: 1972/73, £8.23 millions; 1973/74, £12.95 millions; 1974 (nine months), £11.45 millions; 1975, £17.72 millions; 1976, £23 millions.
When you see expenditure of that kind being devoted to the provision of up-to-date sewerage systems and considerable sums being spent on the improvement of older schemes, you will realise the substantial increase in expenditure in this regard. I have no doubt that we will continue to have a sympathetic approach and sympathetic action on the part of the Minister for Local Government when funds are available, and as soon as we return to what we can describe as a normal financial climate, I have little doubt that priority will be given to updating sewerage systems where there is general need for improvement at present.
I am absolutely convinced of the sincerity with which the Parliamentary Secretary is approaching his assurance, but it is a very minor point. Section 16 reads: "A person other than a sanitary authority shall not, after such day as may be fixed for the purpose of this section by order discharge or cause or permit the discharge of effluent...". Is there a possibility that a person may apply for a licence to a sanitary authority and on the grounds that one has applied to the licensing authority and a decision has not been given, a pollution hazard might be created? It is rather like the text of the old Planning Act. After a building went up there was a certain reluctance to demolish something that stood.
They cannot discharge until they have the licence. They must have the licence before they are permitted to discharge.
What is the period that is envisaged in the first part of section 16: "A person other than a sanitary authority shall not, after such day as may be fixed for the purpose of this section by order made by the Minister..."?
It might be from six to 12 months. It is difficult to say.
It is very important.
With regard to the question asked by Senator Higgins and answered by the Parliamentary Secretary, I wish to quote briefly from the circular which all the Members here received from the Lough Sheelin Trout Protection Association. It says:
Existing polluters can continue their discharge from the time a licence is applied for until the Local Authority thinks fit to deal with their application.
That seems to contradict the Parliamentary Secretary.
I have no doubt that the local authority will act in the case of very serious pollution but from the passing of this Bill until the time regulations are made I venture to say will be at least six months. It takes time.
A firm may emit this effluent for only a day or two in a year and by the time the application is either refused or granted it will have done all the damage necessary to kill all fish life. If this statement is true it is a serious loophole.
The Senator is speaking about existing factories. Is that not so? One must take a reasonable and flexible approach.
The person who raised this has been anxious to be constructive about it and find a way out of it. The point made by the Lough Sheelin Trout Protection Association in their memorandum to Members of this House would be—I know the Parliamentary Secretary is very keen on this—to advise the Water Pollution Advisory Council of the necessity of a quick opinion being made available to the Minister and then conveyed perhaps to the local authority. The point that is being made by Senator Deasy—and it is a very important one—is this: it is not just simply a matter of time that is at stake. For example, when one is speaking about effluent into a water supply what is at stake is the state of flow of the water supply at the time, the volume of water available and the nature of the effluent, so that effluent in a very brief period of time could do irrevocable damage whereas effluent over a long period of time might do rather minor damage. The ability to specify conditions in which effluent might be put into water at any time is something upon which the Water Pollution Advisory Council might well advise when it comes to the specification of standards.
The only other point that might make it serious is that there is a startling similarity between this and that part of the Planning and Development Bill in which Bord Pleanála were being asked to give a decision within a reasonable period of time for reasons both of the developer and the people who were affected by the development. Perhaps the real issue that is touched on by Senator Deasy and this memorandum might be got around if it were given a priority upon which the Water Pollution Advisory Council might advise.
Surely there is no doubt under the section that once a day is fixed no one other than the local authority has permission to discharge except under licence? It is absolutely clear that once the date is fixed he must have a licence.
We have had unhappy experiences within other contexts. When the road authority was being made liable for maintenance of speed limits on a date to be fixed, the date had never been fixed. The Parliamentary Secretary would be anxious to have a date here. There is no time limit. This could drift on. Could it be possible perhaps on Report Stage to put in an amendment saying, "after such day as may be fixed for the purposes of the section not being later than six months after the passage of this Bill"?
There is already a licensing requirement under the Fisheries Acts.
We are repealing that, are we not? We repeal sections 171 and 172 of the Fisheries Consolidation Act and replace them with this provision.
It will not be repealed before this Bill comes into operation.
But this Bill would not go into operation before the Minister prescribes a date for the operation of this section.
It will not be repealed before the operative date.
"The following are hereby repealed."
The Minister will have to make an order.
There is a possibility that we are repealing the particular sections of the Fisheries Consolidation Act——
Section 32 will govern the date of the operation of the Bill.
The problem is that section 16 does not come into effect until the day is fixed for the purpose by order made by the Minister. There is no time limit on that, so a year, 18 months or two years may pass because of the difficulty of making interim arrangements, or whatever the problem is, and in the meantime some people can discharge——
The Minister will make the order to coincide with the commencement of the new order. Where will there be a loss of time?
In other words, until this comes into operation they will be caught by the——
By the Fisheries Act.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."
It is purely a matter of clarification. Section 33 of the Bill subsection (c) repeals sections 171 and 172 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959. This is the Act which gave some power to fisheries to act in relation, for example, even to local authorities. The point is that section 17 subsection (3) (a) states:
any such licence may be reviewed at any time by the sanitary authority which granted it where the authority has reasonable grounds for believing the discharge authorised by the licence to be a significant threat to public health or where a material change (which could not reasonably have been foreseen when the licence was granted) has taken place in conditions in the waters to which the sewer discharges.
Those people, for example, who wrote to Senator Deasy, myself and other Senators would argue that to retain the status quo prior to the repeal of sections 171 and 172 of the Fisheries (Consolidation Act), 1959, one would have needed to insert after “public health” in line 36, “or fisheries”; the subsection would then read: “for believing the discharge authorised by the licence to be a significant threat to public health or fisheries”. If that was so one could argue that one could almost accept the later provision of section 33 and say that whatever was now being given away was being accounted for.
The Senator does agree that section 17 has nothing whatever to do with fisheries, that we are dealing with sewers.
I do, but the disquiet that has arisen in connection with sections 16, 17 and others and with the local authorities arises from the fact that in a later section, 33, we are in fact giving away some powers which exist at the present time.
Only if we go fishing in sewers.
I know Senator O'Higgins is not deliberately trying to misconstrue me.
I am sorry. I do not want to put the Senator off but that is the way it appears to me.
The section does refer to "waters which the sewer discharges", so one would hope in fact that the water which they discharge does not become constituent with the sewer, in other words that the two become synonymous which would be something that even Senator M. J. O'Higgins would not like. I leave the point. I will take it up under section 33.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 18 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 15 :
In page 16, before section 21, to insert the following new section:
"(1) The Minister may by order provide that all appeals under sections 8 and 20 (or such classes of such appeals as he specifies in the order) shall, in lieu of being brought to the Minister, be brought to An Bord Pleanála.
(2) Where an order under this section is made references in sections 8 and 20 to the Minister in relation to appeals the subject of the order shall be construed as references to An Bord Pleanála and the determination of such appeals shall be a function of An Bord Pleanála.
(3) An order under this section may contain such incidental supplementary, consequential and transitional provisions (including modification of any provision of this Act and modification or application of any provision of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 and 1976) as appear to the Minister to be necessary for the purpose of, in consequence of or to give full effect to the order.
(4) The Minister may by order amend or revoke an order under this section.
(5) Every order under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.".
The purpose of the amendment is, as mentioned in the Second Reading speech, to enable the Minister by order to transfer the function of considering appeals under section 8 and section 20 to An Bord Pleanála the establishment of which is provided for in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1973 which has passed all its stages in this House.
Subsection (1) enables the Minister by order to transfer all such appeals or certain classes of appeals to An Bord Pleanála. Subsection (2) provides that where such an order is made by the Minister the determination of appeals, the subject of the order, will be a function of the board. Subsection (3) provides that an order may include incidental, supplementary, consequential and transitional provisions including the application or modification of any provision of the Planning Acts required to give full effect to the order. Subsection (4) provides for revocation or amendment of orders. Under subsection (5) any order made under this section will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
A point here is one which caused myself some concern where I had seen the local authorities involved in monitoring effluents and so on. A problem arises which perhaps could not be dealt with in this Bill but to which we will have to address ourselves and that is what, for example, constitutes expert opinion? The section says, "shall carry out or cause to be carried out". This raises the question immediately that the local authorities may not possess the resources, scientific or otherwise, to carry out the research themselves or cause to be carried out or arrange for such monitoring sampling.
The Senator is dealing with section 21. We have not reached that yet, we are just dealing with amendment No. 15.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is a new section: amendment No. 15.
On the amendment introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary to transfer all appeals or certain classes of appeals from the Minister to An Bord Pleanála established under the new Planning Bill, I am very much in favour of the transfer of these appeals to An Bord Pleanála. I would just like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why this is not being done in sections 8 and 16 and why do the sections not read that "the appeal shall be to An Bord Pleanála" rather than lying, as they do now, to the Minister but by order of the Minister possibly to be transferred. It seems to be slightly contradictory of the whole purpose of the establishment of An Bord Pleanála. I certainly accept the amendment, and if the Minister is prepared to transfer all appeals forthwith then all we have got is rather cumbersome language in the Bill, but the object is achieved. It would have been better from the beginning to constitute An Bord Pleanála as the Appeals Board.
It is envisaged that all appeals under this Bill will go to An Bord Pleanála. Naturally enough some time will elapse before the board is set up and functioning properly.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed : "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."
This is the kernel of the Bill because if the work which is mentioned in this section is not carried out the whole Bill is useless. I take it that the Minister and the Department of Local Government will see to it that the local authorities will do what is prescribed in this section. I have already stated that I am opposed to the local authorities being involved in the granting of licences and in the monitoring and so on and I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary does this type of work mean that we will have a new section in each county council and local authority? Just as at the moment we have sections for housing, roads, water and sewerage, are we now going to have a section known as the anti-pollution section in each local authority?
I think we always should have had such.
I gravely doubt if the local authorities are going to carry out the duties mentioned in this section to the extent to which they need to be carried out. There are such things in county councils as burial ground committees and sheep-dipping committees and they never function, and I am afraid that this anti-pollution section will not function either, so I stress to the Parliamentary Secretary that he will have to crack the whip.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said with conviction that he felt local authorities have shown great willingness to combat pollution. I would question that. My experience is that they have done very little in places and unless they are pushed by the Department of Local Government the whole point of this Bill will collapse. To the members of local authorities, it is essential that this service be set up in each local authority area and that we get regular reports on the state of our waterways. If this section is implemented and the Parliamentary Secretary pushes the local authorities concerned he will do a very useful day's work. Otherwise the whole thing is a waste of time.
I apologise to the Leas-Chathaoirleach for having intervened at a wrong stage. I was making an important point, that I agree with what Senator Deasy has said and I am quite confident, by the way this Bill has been handled that many of the deterrents will be interpreted generously. We both agree on that.
May I make a point arising directly from a phrase like "shall carry out or cause to be carried out". "Shall carry out" raises the question of having their own resources which most of them would not have. Secondly "cause to be carried out" means that they could contract out for such information. There are two ways of gathering information on pollution. One is that you can gather a minimum of information so as to assuage people's fears, do a cover-up. Another way you would gather information is to allow several different options to be presented so that people could make a choice.
I have become aware in the brief time I have been on a local authority of the tremendous pressure made regularly that no impediment be placed in the way of rapid industrialisation. This kind of pressure is particularly high in times of unemployment so what one could have, if one did not have sufficient finance, is worse than what exists at present. You may well have what is referred to, for example, in subsection (2). One may have meters, gauges, manholes, inspection chambers and other apparatus and may have it providing the minimum of information required to meet the least argument. One could have public concern being answered, when in fact there is insufficiency of research information.
Therefore it would be of the utmost importance that we have sufficient grant or such to enable us to have alternative opinions offered. For example, even scientists differ on the conditions in which experiments are carried out on the discharge of effluent. It is a moot argument about life in water into which effluent is going as to whether one can ever simulate accurately the conditions in nature. It may be necessary to have several different experiments. This section here could be an extremely dangerous piece of window-dressing. It could be used as that, and a local authority willing to bend under industrialisation would need to be very well financed indeed.
There is a final point, which is extremely dangerous and that is attached to the Government of the day. It may be a research institute which carries out such experiments. It may be an established institute which carries out experiments and it might happen that their opinion would in the more usual run of cases be the final arbiter as to what was a valid objection and what was not. The case therefore is that this will require tremendous financing and central monitoring. Anyone who has been on a local authority knows that industries have been established which found that questions in regard to effluent were not asked by some local authorities and were asked by other local authorities, and that industries shifted frequently from areas where the questions became tough and located in areas where the questions were least. It is this crucial section 21 which will establish the relationship between people who want responsible environmental development and people willing to bend before the short-term industrialisation pressures at time of high unemployment.
The best argument that could be made for section 21 was made by Senator M. D. Higgins. It is absolutely essential that local authorities and sanitary authorities should make arrangements for such monitoring of discharges in receiving waters, including tidal and coastal waters, as is necessary for the performance of their functions under this Bill, including compliance with the licensing provisions of sections 4 and 16 and the discharge of trade and sewage effluents and preparation for water quality management plans.
It is right to remind Senators that here we have the local authority already set up, a unit organised for administrative purposes in each area. I cannot see by what other means we would implement the terms of the Bill. First and foremost, by allowing the local authority to administer the Bill you will have greater awareness and greater involvement of the elected representatives. That is exactly what the Minister for Local Government wants. He wants elected representatives to become more involved in the working of the local authority. Whilst we have had in the past numerous pleas by various local authorities that their powers were restricted, here we have legislation giving additional powers and authority to local authorities.
With reference to Senator Deasy's observations, the local authority are the right and proper people to administer the Bill. If it were not administered by the local authorities by what means could we set up as effective or as efficient an organisation as the local authority? The local authorities are already in existence. There is the administrative note as well as the elected representatives. The engineering and technical branches are set up. The local authorities are aware of all the rivers and mainstreams within their counties and have full knowledge of every sewerage scheme and plant within the county areas. With an organisation of that kind already in existence I cannot see what greater means we could have at our disposal than to give them the authority.
Senator Deasy has already asked if we are going to have an anti-pollution section established in each local authority. I hope so. I share his regret and concern that local authorities may not have been on the alert, as they might have been, in order to combat pollution in the past. If we have an executive officer of the local authority in charge of licensing and the general administration of the Bill with the involvement of local councillors and the engineering and technical staffs, I visualise the Bill being very effective.
I should hope that local authorities will be most willing and anxious to co-operate in every possible way in providing the controls required under the Bill. I am sure that I am expressing the anxiety of the Minister for Local Government when I say that we look forward to the fullest co-operation in improving the environment by the elimination, in so far as is humanly possible, of all pollution that comes to notice. It is envisaged that local authority programmes for monitoring or receiving notice will be co-ordinated on a catchment area basis and integrated with national water quality surveys being carried out by An Foras Forbartha. May I pay a very well-deserved tribute to An Foras Forbartha for the contribution they have so generously made and the statistics and knowledge that they have provided as a result of their surveys? Local authority monitoring will be co-ordinated with any monitoring programmes or projects carried out by other bodies such as the IIRS surveys of effluents and hydrometric surveys carried out by the Office of Public Works. This will enable local and sanitary authorities to undertake sampling and analysis of waters as required in connection with the implementation of a number of directives which have been adopted under the EEC programme of action on the environment.
I am sure Senators have given serious thought and study to the programme of action on the environment and the directives that have already been given in this regard. These include the directive on the quality of surface water intended for abstraction of drinking water, the directive on the quality of bathing waters and a directive on the discharge of dangerous substances into the aquatic environment.
It is important that the Minister should have power to direct that monitoring and so forth should be carried out to enable the State to comply with international or EEC obligations in this respect. Therefore under this section the monitoring and so on is a very great responsibility on the part of local authorities. This responsibility becomes even greater arising from our membership of the European Economic Community and the obligation to comply with the directives that come from there. Since there are directives concerned with the environment we should be ready to play our part. We should have our legislation in order and should be highly efficient and effective. Section 21 gives a very generous power to local authorities and I have no hesitation in expressing the humble belief that there will be a very generous response from them and their members. I feel sure that on familiarising themselves with the full terms of every section of this Bill they will use local authority meetings as a platform for the purpose of soliciting support and co-operation from the public by making them aware of all their responsibilities in this regard.
This Bill will enable us to make great headway if we are all in step and going in the same direction. The local authority, the Water Pollution Advisory Council, the Minister for Local Government and all of us are together in this. This is not the concern of the Department of Local Government alone. This is the concern of all our people. Community effort involving every local authority is required to eliminate the serious problem of pollution. The structure already set up based on the local authority is the right and proper structure for this legislation. I ask Senators to wait and see. As soon as the Bill is in operation and every local authority is playing its part, there will be practical results. I have every confidence and trust in the local authorities in this regard.
With regard to the Parliamentary Secretary's appeal to the local authorities to get in behind this and work step by step and bring it to success, I would like to say that apart from calling on the local authority, in some cases it will be necessary to call on Government Departments to help. It has happened especially in the Lough Sheelin area in County Cavan that pig producers who built piggeries in accordance with plans of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and for which they obtained grants were later prosecuted for polluting fields. If the Department of Agriculture were playing its role in the prevention of pollution this could not have happened. In that regard, the Department will have to come into the picture
With regard to industrial pollution it has happened that factories have been erected which have not conformed with the prescribed planning permission and have been discharging effluent. It is a fact that the authorities in the area are slow to do anything about it because it might drive industry out of the area. I agree entirely with what Senator M.D. Higgins has said in that regard. It will be necessary to have co-operation between local authorities and Government Departments.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is right and I am wrong. Unfortunately, I lost faith in the civic spirit of the Irish long ago. To appeal to the local authorities and the public in general to clean up the country is a waste of time. It has been done so often and has been ignored so often that I do not see any hope of improving our waterways and stopping pollution in general unless we legislate. I do not agree that we should depend on the people down the country to see that it is done. Time and again we heard appeals to stop people throwing litter about the place, to stop the discarding of car bodies on the sides of main roads and various anti-pollution appeals like that but invariably they have been ignored by the majority of people.
It is our duty to legislate and to see that the state of our waterways does not disimprove. It is our duty to see that we bring about a vast improvement. Unfortunately, we have a system of local government which makes it the duty of the public to pay the rates which keep the local institutions going. From my experience when it comes to striking a rate non-essential matters such as clearing up litter and the elimination of pollution in general are scrubbed out. While I am all in favour of local democracy and giving elected representatives more power, I want to ensure that they do not get so much power that they can do damage rather than good. That is why I have reservations. If one gives them too much power in this regard they can do an awful lot of harm. They have had the power, in ways, over the years, to stop pollution of our waterways. What has happened? Local authorities have been the single biggest polluter. It has been said here before and I say it again. Now we are asking them to eliminate pollution. I am afraid they will not do it. I have every reason to believe they will not do it. I hope they do; I think they may not.
Senator Higgins raised a very important point we come across every second day of the week. We are told that employment is so important that people will have to put up with pollution. We should not accept that, but it is accepted. As he stated, industrialists will shop around until they get a soft touch and then they will go in and pollute, whereas they should be hammered. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary and the Department of Local Government to press the local authorities and see that they do their duty. I am not prepared to accept that they should be asked to do it voluntarily; they must be pushed into doing it. We should enact legislation which makes them do it.
If section 21 is not implemented by the Department and the Minister the whole purpose of the Bill is defeated. I draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the last few words, "as may be directed by the Minister" and I ask him to see that these people are made do it. When it comes to saving money on the rates this is the type of service which will be scrubbed. They will not want to know about it and pollution will increase. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates my point of view. I have not got that much faith in human nature. Maybe I am wrong, but I have seen it happen in regard to the litter problem and I can see it happening in regard to water pollution.
Finally, the Parliamentary Secretary raised a question in reply when he asked, what body is better suited to preventing pollution of our waters than the local authorities? There is an outstanding body which can and should have been chosen to do it and why it was overlooked I do not understand. The boards of convervators are the natural people to see that our waters are not polluted. It is their duty to protect fish life and, in my view, the preservation of fish life is a criterion as regards the level of pollution in our waterways. These boards are made up of outstanding public individuals who are drawn from the ranks of fishermen, the owners of fisheries and the representatives of fishermen. They do a tremendous job and up to now they have been implementing the majority of the anti-pollution laws. The main culprits they have been catching are the local authorities who are now supposed to go out and catch everybody else. I think they will continue to be the main polluters in years to come unless the Parliamentary Secretary puts the squeeze on them.
In reply to the question raised by the Parliamentary Secretary—who better to do it?—I say the boards of conservators. It may be necessary to broaden their base a little by allowing some members of local authorities and an inspector from the Department to serve on the board, but surely these are the people who are interested. Local authorities, by and large, are not interested in anti-pollution measures. They are mainly concerned with saving money when striking a rate. That is why I have these grave reservations.
I agree with most of what the last speaker has said, but I do not agree that the boards of conservators should be the people to implement this or prosecute, as the case may be because there are so many forms of pollution. The boards of conservators are only concerned with fishing. Does the Senator appreciate that? Is that not true?
All over the country we have slaughter houses, chicken houses and so on. The boards of conservators are concerned with fish and have no interest in such buildings. The local authorities are the people to implement this. They are democratically elected whereas members of boards of conservators are chosen by the Minister.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be patient with me if I wander for a moment. I want to draw a comparison with the Road Traffic Act. We all know how much money is spent on straightening and taking corners off roads but people double-park trucks and cars. The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of this and he knows that if the previous speaker's suggestion is accepted the very same set of circumstances will arise.
I made the point that the boards of conservators were the best people to administer this Bill because clean water is an excellent guide as to whether waters are polluted or not. If there is fish life thriving in water it is a good indication as to whether the water is polluted or not. That is the concern of the boards of conservators. The boards of conservators are, by and large, elected representatives of the people they represent. The bulk of them are elected; they are not chosen.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides that the Minister may, after consultation with any other Minister, make regulations requiring local authorities, sanitary authorities and boards of conservators to consult with such persons. In other words, it is requiring people to consult. It is envisaged that they will also have to consult with the Water Pollution Advisory Council or how does it fit into the scheme?
Local authorities will not consult with the Water Pollution Advisory Council. In the exercise of their functions under this Bill it is essential that county and county borough councils consult as necessary with each other and with other interests concerned. The interests to be consulted will include, as appropriate, Government Departments concerned, the Commissioners of Public Works, boards of conservators, harbour authorities and the manner of consultation will be specified by the Minister in regulations to be made following consultation with other Ministers, including the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and any other Minister he considers interested. It may be possible to achieve a considerable amount of co-ordination and consultation administratively but it is important to have the power to make regulations on the subject, if necessary.
With regard to licences under section 4 for the discharge of sewage or trade effluents, the effects of a discharge on a catchment area as a whole must be considered. It is envisaged that all interests, including other local authorities in a catchment, will be consulted by the licensing authority. It is envisaged that there will be close consultation, not necessarily prescribed, with the Northern Ireland authorities in relation to Border catchments.
It all sounds very convoluted but I am sure it will work superbly.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Question proposed: "That section 24 stand part of the Bill."
I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would elaborate on the precise relationship between the functions exercised by the local authorities and sanitary authorities in the Bill and the function of the water quality control authority to be established.
Subsection (5) states:
(5) (a) A water quality control authority shall be a joint body within the meaning and for the purposes of the County Management Acts, 1940 to 1972.
(b) A water quality control authority shall be a local authority within the meaning and for the purposes of—
(i) the Local Government Acts, 1925 to 1974,
(ii) the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Acts, 1926 and 1940,
(iii) the Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Act, 1939,
(iv) the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1956, and
(v) the Local Authorities (Mutual Assurance) Acts, 1926 to 1935.
Subsection (6) covers matters which may be included in an order establishing a water control authority.
I was wondering about the relationship between such a body, if established, and the existing local authorities and sanitary authorities.
Under subsection (2) they perform allocated functions of a local authority.
It is proposed to give the Minister this reserve power, to set up special water control authorities for river catchments or suitable groups of catchments. While it is expected that the adequate co-ordination of functions in relation to catchments or groups of catchments can be achieved under other provisions of the Bill, in particular the provisions of section 23 concerning consultation and the general powers of local authorities to co-operate one with another, the power to set up special water quality control authorities under this section could be exercised in the event of problems arising in relation to water pollution control, for example, in estuaries and catchments where there may be a number of county or county borough councils and other bodies involved, or if county or county borough councils should fail to exercise their functions properly. This power could also be used, if necessary, for the establishment generally of a larger water pollution control authority if this should become desirable at a later stage. This power would not be exercised except following consultation with the Minister for the Public Service.
The effect of making a water quality control authority a joint body within the meaning and for the purpose of the County Management Acts, 1940 to 1972, is to bring the authority within the management system. Where part of the functional area of two or more county councils or county borough councils is involved, the manager would be appointed by order of the Minister. The expenses of the joint body would be dealt with in the same way as other non-rating bodies such as town commissioners. As a local authority for the purpose of the Local Authorities Acts, 1925 to 1974, a water quality control authority will be subject to the same provisions in regard to staffing and procedure at its meetings, audit of accounts as apply to local authorities generally. The effect of applying the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Acts, 1926 and 1940 to a water quality control authority will be to ensure that an office to which the Minister, with the concurrence of the Local Appointments Commissioners applies the Act, must be appointed through the Local Appointments Commission.
As a local authority for the purpose of the Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Act, 1939, a water quality control authority may purchase commodities from officially appointed contractors. The effect of applying the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1956, to a water quality control authority is to apply the superannuation code to officers and servants of the authority.
It is less the details of what is in the section and more of what is in the mind of the Minister in wanting this reserve power to establish a water quality control authority that I was concerned with. Is this an alternative scheme?
It is a possible alternative.
If Senator Deasy's pessimism turns out to be the reality and it is not possible to have proper controls through the operation of local authorities, is it the Minister's intention on a country-wide basis to control?
That would be the Minister's intention if the need arose for a particular catchment or groups of catchments.
This would be a completely different method of control of pollution using specific bodies set up for that purpose?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Question proposed: "That section 25 stand part of the Bill."
Senator M.J. O'Higgins reminded me that I was raising an objection under a wrong section earlier. Section 25 proposes to establish standards by the establishment of regulations but the proposal to establish these regulations is conditional on the words:
... it shall be the duty of the sanitary authority in which the sewer is vested or by which it is controlled to take steps as soon as practicable to ensure that the sewage effluent complies with or does not result in the waters to which the effluent is discharged not complying with, any relevant standard prescribed under this section.
The suggestion made in the communication sent to Members of both Houses by the Galway/Corrib Anglers' Association was this condition, "as soon as is practicable", which will probably be interpreted to some extent on the notion of as soon as funds are available, is a considerable weakening of powers to enforce standards. It is commented on both by that body and by the other body which has written to Senators and Deputies, the Lough Sheelin Trout Protection Association. They say that taken with section 33 it rescinds sections 171 and 172 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959. It is the view of these angling associations that given the potential repeal of sections 171 and 172 of the 1959 Act and this section which is restricted by the phrase "as soon as is practicable" and the likelihood that a local authority will invoke insufficiency of funds, their position will be weakened. Their suggestion and that of Senator O'Brien, a member of the Lough Sheelin Trout Protection Association, is that if we repeal sections 171 and 172 and merely replace them with the powers given here to establish standards a local authority polluting a lake such as Lough Sheelin will not be able to be prosecuted with the same force as before. A polluter who pleads that he took all reasonable care—the phrase is used in the section—cannot be convicted.
A number of people will, under other sections, be precluded from the collection of evidence on pollution. Under other sections some waters may well be specified by local authorities as non-protected waters. The organised angling associations see danger in this loophole which is given to the local authority. They see immense danger when put with the repeal contained in section 33.
In order to ensure that water quality is maintained to a proper standard on a national basis it may be necessary to prescribe standards for receiving waters having regard to their existing and potential use. Such standards would be in the nature of objectives to which local authorities would have to have regard in preparing water quality management plans under section 15. In addition, local authorities would be prevented from issuing a licence under section 4 for the discharge of trade or sewage effluent which would result in the receiving waters contravening the standards. Such standards may be important in the context of complying with EEC directives such as those dealing with the quality required for surface water intended for abstraction of drinking water and the quality of water for bathing.
The section also includes power to prescribe standards for trade and sewage effluent. Our present approach to such standards is that each discharge would be considered having regard to the conditions in receiving waters and in this way to match the quality of the discharge to the capacity of the receiving waters. It may, however, become necessary at some stage to fix standards for discharges, mainly to facilitate compliance with international obligations, including obligations arising under the EEC programme of Action of the Environment in particular and the directive on the reduction of pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the acquatic environment. The effect of any regulations made under this section 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 possible to ensure that the sewage effluent does not result in contravention of the regulations. In this connection I should like to point out that sewage schemes have to be planned, designed, advertised and tenders received. They are usually processed in the Department of Local Government and tenders examined. The planning of sewage schemes cannot take place overnight; it naturally must take some considerable time. I can assure the House and in particular Senator Higgins that it will be as soon as is humanly possible. I qualify that by saying, without unavoidable delay of any kind or nature.
Am I correct in saying as is stated in a report in the Irish Press on 15th April, 1976, that certain bodies can emit effluent into the waterways and not be prosecuted. The report states that under the Bill there are exclusions. For instance, Bord na Móna would not be bound by its restrictions. Is it possible that semi-State bodies can emit effluent, as stated by Senator Higgins? The Senator was referring to section 33. I will deal with that on section 33 because it brings to mind a very serious point raised by Senator Whyte recently which has not been dealt with.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Question proposed: "That section 26 stand part of the Bill."
Subsections (1) and (2) are too hazy. The word "may" should be substituted by the word "shall". It is a common thing to see ships at port dumping refuse over the side. Subsection (2) states:
A sanitary authority may provide facilities for the reception and disposal of sewage from vessels....
Surely that should be "shall provide". I have seen harbour areas badly polluted by large ships dumping refuse over the side that may have accumulated over many weeks. At least CIE tell us that when the train is standing in a station we should not use the toilets but there is no provision that while a ship is in port refuse or sewage of any description is not dumped into the harbour. The wording of the section should be much stronger.
As regards subsection (2) I do not think we could possibly use "shall" instead of "may" because we would run the danger of imposing a mandatory duty on landlocked local authorities who have nothing to do with vessels.
Apply it to maritime local authorities only.
I am happy with the wording of the section in this regard. I do not think it will create any problem. However, in view of the growing use of rivers and lakes for pleasure boating it is considered desirable that the Minister should have power to make regulations, following consultation with the Minister for Transport and Power and the Commissioners of Public Works, to enable county and county borough councils to exercise control over the use of certain types of boats which discharge their waste directly into the water. This is completely inland. The types of vessels which it is envisaged will be covered by the regulations are small vessels such as pleasure craft which may cause pollution problems by discharging sewage into confined waters. The main problem arises in inland waters and the regulations will not extend to their use in tidal waters.
Why are tidal waters exempt?
Because tidal waters are appropriate to the Department of Transport and Power. The Minister has no function in regard to tidal water. It is likely that legislation will be introduced by the Minister for Transport and Power to cover matters of this kind. Certainly, this provision does not concern us. Sea-going vessels will not come within the scope of this control. In order to ensure the success of this provision it may be necessary for sanitary authorities to provide suitable facilities at marinas for reception and disposal of sewage from vessels. General powers are contained in the Public Health Acts to provide drainage facilities and to dispose of wastes. It is considered desirable however to specify local authority powers in this instance. I recommend the section.
I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has really answered the points made by Senator Deasy. He agreed that it is very important to have this type of regulations, but that was precisely the point Senator Deasy was making. Why not make it a duty of the Minister as soon as the section comes into effect and provide that the Minister "shall"?
The Minister has that power. If it is necessary he will exercise that power. It may not be necessary.
I thought the substance of what the Parliamentary Secretary was saying was that it is necessary because of increasing traffic and increasing problems. Senator Deasy certainly would agree that it was necessary to do it.
If the Minister thinks it is necessary he will exercise it.
It is open to this House in considering the matter to say that it is necessary.
For particular purposes, as the case may arise.
The type of regulation that the Minister would make under this section is an enabling regulation to enable local authorities to prohibit, restrict or regulate the keeping or use, in such waters of vessels with sanitary appliances from which polluting matter passes into the waters, and it seems to me that what is envisaged are global regulations. Is that not the case?
There will be a particular regulation in relation to each local authority?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 27.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are related and could be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 16:
In subsection (1), page 19, to delete line 3 and insert the following:
"(a) performance of a function conferred under this Act on a local authority, a sanitary authority, the Minister, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries or a board of conservators,".
This is a drafting amendment again. It makes it clear that the authorised person may enter a premises or vessels for the purpose of performance of the function conferred by the Act on a local authority, sanitary authority, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries or the board of conservators, as the case may be, rather than a function conferred on the authorised officer. It is merely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 17:
In subsection (1), page 19, line 10, before "a function" to insert "such".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 28 and 29 agreed to.
SECTION 30.
Question proposed: "That section 30 stand part of the Bill."
I want to raise a matter of clarification and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will advise me immediately on it. The section reads:
A local authority may prosecute for an offence. The authority may so prosecute whether or not the offence occurred in (or in respect of waters in) the authority's functional area.
Perhaps when the Parliamentary Secretary is replying to this, he might deal with another point which the Leas-Chathaoirleach might allow. One needs to be able to pin the offence down and where you are dealing with waters passing through a number of local authorities areas one would need this power. Would the Parliamentary Secretary mind replying to another point, which is: in Scandinavian legislation dealing with matters of this kind, when a local authority prosecutes a company, it prosecutes an official of that company, for example, a company's secretary, the managing director, or the board. It is one thing to think of water being polluted and then flowing into many different areas, but when one is trying to track who is responsible for polluting activity, given the nature of industrialisation, one may need to trace the company's responsibility, for example, where the head office of the company is. Will that be possible under the Bill when it becomes law? In other words, one would not simply get the local representative of the company but would be able to get at the company's secretary or the board, even if they were outside the immediate area. I know that it does not strictly arise here.
If the Senator has strong views as to who should be prosecuted in the event of a likely prosecution, it would have been convenient for him to have put down an amendment to that effect. On this question of prosecution, it is a matter for the courts. This section makes it clear that a local authority may prosecute for an offence under this Bill whether or not the offence occurred in its area. I go further in saying that as many river catchments lie in two or more counties, it is possible that an effluent originating in one county could cause pollution in another county. In a case where the point of discharge is close to the boundary between two local authorities this section makes it clear that a downstream local authority may take a prosecution in respect of an offence occurring upstream but outside its area. It is giving no loophole. Once the offence is committed the originator of the offence may be prosecuted.
I would like to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on that section.
It is a good section.
I thought that that would have come under the body the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned earlier—the Water Quality Management Committee in section 15, and that you would not have to go chasing around the place and that there would be collaboration between all. I thought that was the purpose of the water quality management plan.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 31 and 32 agreed to.
SECTION 33.
Question proposed: "That section 33 stand part of the Bill."
This section proposes the repeal of three instruments and my question is one I can quickly ask. The points we made on so many sections and the point made by Cork Angling Associations is this —and I offer it as a suggestion that could be borne in mind—given that we have said that local authorities may when they are able to do so, make all sorts of provisions, would it not be a good step to decide to omit the repeal of sections 171 and 172 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, until local authorities sewerage treatment plants were in such a state as not to be an environmental hazard?
Let us look at the phrases in section 25 "as may be possible", and "as soon as practicable". The argument has been made by people involved in angling associations in particular, that as this phrase probably means that local authorities may need time to make arrangements to put their sewerage management plants in sufficient order to bring about the improvements we all want, might it not be a good idea to forego repeal of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, sections 171 and 172, in the meantime as mentioned in section 33? This would leave the powers and the penalties as represented by those two sections. When one had brought about a greater awareness of such things one could go ahead and repeal these sections later.
The Senator agrees that we cannot have two separate licensing systems. We must have only one. It would not be possible to have a licensing system under this Bill, and a licensing system under the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959 as set out in sections 171 and 172.
The Parliamentary Secretary performed a very great service of clarification in stopping me putting the word "fisheries" in on another occasion, suggesting that it was inappropriate. I am not suggesting that the fact that he stopped me putting the word "fisheries" in means that you would not have a competition between two licensing authorities. What you would have is a system of sanctions specifically in relation to fisheries under one piece of legislation as a standby until one had improved the circumstances whereby this Bill would have greater force. I do not see them as competing as licensing authorities now because of the care we have taken earlier. Rather are they two coexisting systems of investigation and sanction.
The Senator need have no worry. One system will not be finished until it has been replaced by the other.
I assume the statements made by the Lough Sheelin Trout Protection Association in their memorandum are correct. Is it true that because these Acts are repealed the local authority who are polluting Lough Sheelin at the moment cannot be prosecuted? Is it true that this association, or any member thereof, can no longer take an action in the district court but instead will have to go to the high court where costs will be prohibitive? Thirdly, they say that their association, the ESB or the Inland Fisheries Trust, each of whom has an interest in Lough Sheelin, can no longer collect evidence of pollution under the warrant of a district justice. Does the repeal of all these Acts mean that they can no longer safeguard their interests, which is the protection of fish life in Lough Sheelin? If this is so, there is something terribly wrong with the repeal of these Acts.
They will not be repealed until this Act comes into operation. When this Act comes into operation a date has to be fixed. Once that date is fixed, no discharge can take place without a licence.
The new Act will effectively replace these three Acts in that regard?
I have explained that about ten times already today.
The plain suggestion of the document from which Senator Deasy is quoting is that on balance the repeal of these three instruments in time and their replacement by section 25 would be seen as reducing the powers of the people who are interested in the fisheries in Lough Sheelin. That is the opinion expressed. They are judging it over time, in future time. When this new section 25 will have come into being and when these three Acts are gone, they are suggesting that they will not then have the powers they have now.
I do not agree with that view. We will have better and greater powers in this Bill.
The statement in The Irish Press, 15th April, 1976, said that this Bill will mean that Bord na Móna, for instance, would not be bound by its restrictions. I assume that the repeal of these Acts does this. Is that true?
It does not arise on this section.
When I was talking on section 25 I was referred to section 33.
All we are doing is continuing the existing provisions in relation to Bord na Móna.
Does that mean they cannot be prosecuted?
They have a qualified exemption at the moment.
That is important. From what we read in the papers and see on television fish life is almost extinct in certain stretches of the Shannon due to their polluting the area by the emission of peat.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 34 and 35 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 30th June, 1976.