Amendment No. 5 is in the name of Deputy Dempsey, and amendment No. 6 in the name of Deputy Sargent is an alternative. We will take both amendments together, by agreement.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 8, subsection (1), lines 27 to 31, to delete paragraphs (b) and (c).
I tabled this amendment because of my reading of this section but I am not sure if I have taken a proper reading of it. The way I read it, the treatment and discharge of sewage and sewage effluent would be exempt from the provisions of this Bill, and I would like to know why.
Many local authorities are discharging effluent from sewerage operations into rivers, thus causing pollution. I am curious as to why a local authority, as it appears in this section, is exempt from the provisions of the Bill. If I am reading it properly and that is the case, it should not happen and that is why I have tabled this amendment. By including them in the Bill, local authorities will be forced to manage their sewerage systems better. In many cases pollution is caused as much by bad management as by anything else. I await what the Minister has to say on this section.
My amendment No. 6 reads:
In page 8, subsection (1) (b), line 27, after "effluent" to insert "other than the treatment of effluent at, or its discharge from, a facility for the holding, recovery or disposal of waste".
I suggest that there is an omission in subsection (b). The Minister knows that, even though discharges into water are covered under water pollution legislation, the depositing — to use a polite word — of sludge from treatment plants is a bulky matter going into a landfill. From time to time in north County Dublin, I pass lorries containing such sludge on their way to Baleall dump. If this is to be exempted in the legislation it will fly in the face of what the legislation is trying to achieve. It is not only sludge in its raw state but it forms a serious part of a cocktail of materials and chemicals in a landfill and therefore must be taken into account in the provisions of this Bill in so far as it deals with landfills and how they are to be monitored.
This is not allencompassing legislation. There are good provisions already on the Statute Book and I do not wish to duplicate regulations that are working to high standards and which comply with European directives and law. By and large this Bill deals with solid waste, with some exceptions to deal with hazardous waste that might not be solid. Sewage discharges are covered under the water pollution Acts, the Environmental Protection Agency Act, urban waste water treatment regulations and various laws that already exist. I do not wish to overlap or cause confusion by repeating regulations and standards.
Sludge is solid and is encompassed in this Bill. It will be part of the regimes to be put in place for monitoring waste.
That is arguable. I have reason to believe that if a court were faced with somebody such as a local authority trying to defend a problem brought about by the dumping of sludge it could point to that "sewage and sewage effluent" provision. The material has not changed — it is still sewage even though it might be solidified. It should be referred to explicitly. This legislation is supposed to stand up in court and the provision is highly arguable if it is not amended along the lines I have suggested.
I thank the Deputy for his help. However, section 51 deals exclusively with sludge.
Is it not conflicting?
Section 51 deals exclusively with sludge. It states: "The provisions of this section shall apply notwithstanding the provisions of any bye-law made under section 21 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Act, 1990. . . sludge from a facility operated by a local authority for the treatment of water or waste water," and so forth. We encompassed sludge with a number of other categories in earlier definition sections and the advice from the parliamentary draftsman was that it was unnecessary because it is specifically included. The Deputy's legislative fears are unnecessary. Our best advice is that inclusion at the definition stage is unnecessary.
What about the dumping of sludge at sea?
The dumping of sludge at sea is covered under specific legislation from the Department of the Marine.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 8, subsection (1) (b), line 27, after "effluent" to insert "other than the treatment of effluent at, or its discharge from, a facility for the holding, recovery or disposal of waste".
I do not see any point in pressing this amendment because it probably will be voted down. However, we should make clear statements and although the parliamentary draftsman thinks it is a waste of ink to include a few extra words there should be a little clarification.
For the sake of absolute clarity we take the advice of the parliamentary draftsman on these matters, as Deputies who have worked in Government Departments are aware. However, I will ask my officials to discuss this again with the draftsman and if it is not crystal clear I will look at it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.