Amendments Nos. 191, 192, 194, 194a and 195a are alternatives to amendment No. 190, amendment No. 191a is an alternative to amendment No. 191, amendment No. 193 is an alternative to amendment No. 194, amendment No. 195 is an alternative to amendment No. 194a and amendment No. 196 is related. Amendments Nos. 190, 191, 191a, 192, 193, 194, 194a, 195, 195a and 196 will be taken together by agreement.
SECTION 51.
I move amendment No. 190:
In page 71, lines 11 to 26, to delete subsection (2).
We are back to discussing the recovery of sludge and agricultural waste. The Minister indicated we had a similar discussion on this matter when discussing section 8. He also said that while he wished to keep this matter within his ambit, he intended to extend the IPC system to include these wastes. Is that the Minister's final response?
I have volumes of briefing notes on this matter. We can confuse ourselves on technicalities and interrelationships so I will keep it simple.
Concern was expressed when we spoke previously — it may have also been mentioned on Second Stage — that agricultural sludge may not be covered under this regime. I do not intend having a licensing mechanism for every farmer who spreads sludge on his land. That would be impractical and totally burdensome. However, other activities will be covered and that is a reasonable and proper way of dealing with the issue. The amendments that seek to bring these wastes under the licensing regime would be impractical and I ask people not to go down that route. Maybe the Chairman has a view on it as well.
I have.
A long list of matters have been mentioned here and I am sure some of them may slip by without reference.
My proposal to delete the non-compliance of sludge and blood of animal or poultry origin for a waste licence has nothing to do with circumscribing the behaviour or practice in which farmers may need to engage. It is clearly stated that sludge coming from a facility operated by a local authority and blood of animal or poultry origin, which is highly polluting — the effect it had in Ballagh-aderreen is an example — should be deleted. Considerable damage can be done by these pollutants and I do not see why they should be excluded.
A conscientious Minister will make the best use of legislation but what if this legislation is in place when a less scrupulous Minister for the Environment, who could make further such deletions, is in office? This is a loophole. I am not saying Ministers will not be careful but we should not leave loop-holes in legislation either.
This group of amendments reflects a deep concern, borne out of experience in our areas, of the polluting effect of certain activities that now appear to be exempt from the requirement to have a licence. The Minister put this Bill forward as the last of the great building blocks to protect our environment; we already have two in place and——
I suspect matters will come on stream but——
There seems to be a sense of integration in what we are putting in place. There ought to be; that was the intention. However, there is still the fear that even with all this integrated environmental protection legislation, there is still a range of activities deeply damaging to the environment, especially to our water quality, with which we have not come to terms legally.
I fully accept it is not practical to expect every farmer to have a licence in respect of the slurry he spreads on his land. However, a great deal of water pollution derives directly from the manner in which slurry is spread and anybody who does not know that is not living in the real Ireland. It also derives from poultry farms of a certain size and the commercial carriage of blood and they are all highly polluting activities. We may not discuss this issue again for a long time. I am not satisfied that when this Bill is enacted, we will have enough legal power to tackle these situations, to avert the kind of damage done, especially to our water quality, and to prevent it happening in the future.
I ask the Minister to take my concern on board and to reply to it in the context of these amendments. If he cannot do so, can he demonstrate to us how he plans to tackle the issues that gave rise to these amendments in the first place?
It is important I spell out my intent in this regard. We are approaching a real issue — I am not sure I will continue to please the Chairman as I did in my earlier comments on these matters. There are problems that need to be tackled. However, I do not propose to bring every individual farmer under the licensing regime of section 39. I am giving myself and the local authorities additional powers under section 50 (3) and (4).
Section 51 (3) states that "The Minister may make regulations prohibiting or limiting or controlling in a specified manner and to a specified extent, the recovery of any waste to which subsection (2) applies". I will have the power, if this subsection is enacted, to make my own regulations prohibiting, limiting or controlling all these wastes as I see fit. I am not satisfied the continued land spreading of blood, for example, is justified and I intend to make a prohibition order of that practice if I am given the powers under this subsection.
I propose to replace the European Communities' use of sludge in agriculture regulations with new regulations under this Bill. It will be appropriate to introduce an authorisation system under subsection (4) (a) for the recovery of certain types of natural farm wastes which will be technically classified as hazardous wastes, for example, silage effluent. The recovery of any such hazardous waste must, under current EU regulations, be subject to authorisations.
Section 51 (4) states that
Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), regulations under this section may make provision in relation to all or any of the following matters—
(a) a requirement that the recovery of relevant waste (other than that involving the spreading of such waste on, or its injection into, land on a farm from which such waste originates), shall not be carried out without the prior written consent of the local authority in whose functional area the proposed recovery activity is to take place, and enabling that local authority to attach such conditions to such a consent as it considers appropriate.
The spreading of sludges, silage and so on will be subject to local control. I propose to go a step further than is envisaged in that subsection. I intend to remove the bracketed part of that subsection on Report Stage so I can bring the spreading of such effluent by a farmer on his land under the control mechanism of the local authority, even if that sludge, silage or farm effluent originates on that land.
This is a major step and its monitoring will impose a new burden on local authorities. There will be considerable activity under that heading in a county like mine or Deputy Dempsey's. I am moving well down the road the Deputy mentioned. It is not necessary to set each individual activity up as individual licensable activities. They can be controlled as well and more effectively by regulations under the subsections I indicated.
I accept the Minister's intent. He gave a satisfactory reply to that group of amendments and accordingly, I withdraw my amendments.
Since I am Chairman, I assume I cannot enter the fray.
You have to be neutral.
Yes. I agree with most of what the Minister is doing. However, on behalf of my constituents, I hope there is no danger that a time will come when slurry connot be spread under ideal conditions. The spreading of slurry on farmland is an integral part of farming and if it was stopped, it would gum up the process.
We are only one generation from the land, Chairman.
If one considers what is happening in some continental countries——
Correct and proper procedures will have been formed.
We will discuss this matter further another time.
I was a member of a local authority for a considerable period. The agricultural community is well represented on county councils across the country. I do not envisage that this would be an overly burdensome regulation. Our single biggest environmental problem is water quality.
Exactly.
The biggest single cause of water pollution is farm effluent. Both we and the farmers have spent huge sums of money attacking that problem but we have still a good way to go. Shortly after I became Minister. I launched a video for farmers through Teagasc. Many farmers are spending a lot of money over-applying nutrients to their soil in an inappropriate manner and that will have to be addressed. I have had discussions with my constituency colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, on this matter. There is a tremendous awareness among the agricultural community that they have to be part of finding the solution to water quality degradation.
The only input we have is in discussing this Bill. When it is passed, the Minister is off, as Seán Duignan might say, on his own merry-go-round. However, that is not why I feel it should not be seen as being overly restrictive. This is the only forum where we can tell the Minister what we want him to do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 191 to 192, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 193:
In page 71, subsection (2) (a) (iv), lines 18 and 19, to delete "of a non-hazardous nature".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 194 and 194a not moved.
I move amendment No. 195:
In page 71, subsection (2) (b), line 22, after "waste" to insert "or waste recovery activity".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 195a and 196 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 51, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I am considering introducing a further amendment to this section on Report Stage to amend the Water Pollution Act, 1977, to introduce measures relating to the management of nutrient deposits on farms. Such measure would be intended to complement the existing provisions of the Water Pollution Acts and the provisions I have outlined encompassed in this section of the Bill as they relate to the deposition of agricultural waste and sludges.
I am contemplating, in line with the policy I indicated, whether it would be appropriate to require farmers to prepare and implement their own nutrient management programmes and submit those to either the local authority or the agency as appropriate. I will come back with my fleshed out proposals on that on Report Stage.
The Minister will get support for that from this side of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 52 and 53 agreed to.