Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 27 Apr 1971

Vol. 253 No. 4

Private Members' Business (Resumed): - Air and Water Pollution: Motion.

Mr. L. Belton

I move:

That, in view of the deteriorating situation with regard to air and water pollution and the lack of up-to-date legislation to deal with the position, Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for Local Government to introduce legislation forthwith to rectify this state of affairs.

There is a song which was very popular at one time and possibly still is: "Thank God we're surrounded by water". The constituency that I have the honour to represent, Dublin North Central, is surrounded by water. The river Liffey bounds it on one side; the river Tolka flows right through it and then it is open to Dublin Bay. Whatever else the people of Dublin North Central may thank God for, they will not thank God for being surrounded by the polluted water of Dublin. It is now two years since we started this agitation. During the election campaign of 1969 the weather was extremely fine and very suitable for canvassing. Anywere I went canvassing —and I am sure it was the same for all the candidates from Dublin North Central—I was asked what we would do about the state of the river Tolka or would anything be done about it. At that time the people living adjacent to the River Tolka told me they preferred the weather not to be too fine because when the weather was fine they could hardly stay in their homes because of the stench from the River Tolka.

Soon after that election I tabled questions to the then Minister for Local Government who is no longer a Member of this House. The replies I received were that the pollution of a river was a matter for the local authority in whose area the river happened to be. He disclaimed all responsibility for the state of the River Tolka. We then contacted Dublin Corporation and certain departments of Dublin Corporation told us they were not aware that anything was wrong except that there was an abnormally low level of water due to the fine weather. As soon as the weather deteriorated and it began to rain they felt the conditions of the Tolka would improve.

We were a voluntary body at the time and we took it on ourselves to have samples taken of the water in the River Tolka. We had those samples analysed by the Institute for Research and Standards. I am not qualified to give details of those analyses, I am sure most laymen would not be but one does not need to know a great deal about water pollution when it is explained as it was explained to us. Under one heading, oxygen demand, the normal reading for a healthy river in rural Ireland should be from four to six but in an urban area a figure of between six and eight is acceptable. We found the reading in one instance under this heading to be over 200. If the figures of four, six or eight are regarded as reasonable Deputies can judge how unreasonable the reading of 200 is.

This river flows through the Botanic Gardens which is supposed to be one of Dublin's tourist attractions. Many people who visited the gardens found they simply could not stay there. This river flows through a playground near the Botanic Gardens and the reading there under the heading I have already mentioned was between 150 and 200. Members of the medical profession have expressed the view that this could lead to different forms of disease or fever. I wonder what would happen if a child cut his foot and had to get into this polluted river?

Dollymount Strand is one of the finest strands not alone in Ireland but in Europe but for the last couple of summers people have been reluctant to use Dollymount Strand because of its polluted state. The Dublin Bay Preservation Association, which is a very strong and active association, knows all about the polluted state of Dublin Bay.

Anyone who has ever been to Dublin can tell of the polluted state of the River Liffey yet Dublin Corporation were at one stage unaware of the polluted state of the River Liffey. The Medical Officer of health for Dublin Corporation informed me in writing that he was fully aware that the River Tolka has stunk to high heaven for a number of years.

A Deputy

Hear, hear.

Mr. L. Belton

I do not know who is at fault and who is not, I do not know who is telling the truth and who is not but I recently noticed that Dublin Corporation have taken some steps to remedy the position in the case of the River Tolka. There is an extra pumping house now up at Finglas and both the City Manager and the City Engineer believe that in the not too distant future the River Tolka will again be a free-flowing clean river. Surely this is an admission that it was grossly polluted?

I have spoken to people who remember when it was possible to fish along the River Tolka. I do not think anyone at the present time, unless he came out of a mental home, would think of fishing in the River Tolka, or that part of it which flows through Dublin North Central at present. It is quite possible that one may be able to fish in the part of it which runs through County Meath.

This motion states, and I quote:

"That, in view of the deteriorating situation with regard to air and water pollution and the lack of up-to-date legislation to deal with the position, Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for Local Government to introduce legislation forthwith to rectify this state of affairs."

Any legislation which exists at present is archaic and in most cases it is practically impossible to operate it. Four or five different Ministries are concerned with water pollution: the Minister for Local Government is affected; the Minister for Lands has a say in it; the Minister for Finance has to provide the money, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce has a say in it because anything done might interfere with an industry which would be set up in the area. No one Ministry is solely responsible for dealing with the problem.

I would ask the Minister to find some effective means of bringing this matter to a successful conclusion. The Fine Gael Party have a Bill on the Order Paper in which certain remedies are suggested and I would ask the Minister to consider them. The Minister might ask the local authorities to see that the rivers in their area are brought up to a certain standard. We would ask him to impose reasonable fines on anybody found guilty of polluting rivers. At the moment there is only a nominal fine. If a firm pollutes a river it does not mean very much to them to have to pay a nominal fine; they can continue to pollute the river. I do not for a moment want to be taken as being against industry: industry must go on. Industry is vital for the purpose of providing employment. At the same time industry has a responsibility to the public and it is not, I think, too much to ask that industries should not pollute our rivers and seas. Industries should take every precaution to ensure that noxious effluents do not destroy natural amenities. I urge the Minister to accept this motion and to do what he can to remedy this evil.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I second the motion. We are, perhaps, in a more favourable position from the point of view of controlling pollution than other countries are because our rivers serve only our own territory and we are not in any degree dependent on another country from the point of view of any legislation we may introduce. Literally nothing has been done up to the present moment to curb or control pollution. Deputy Belton has given the House a general resumé of the situation. If it can be definitely proved that someone is polluting a waterway the county council may institute proceedings against him on medical grounds. That is obviously insufficient to deal with the modern problem, a problem every country in the world is facing today. In actual fact it is not, of course, just one person who is polluting a particular river. It is modern industry as a whole, silage, dumping and so on.

There are three major ways in which water can be polluted. It can be polluted by the discharge of untreated sewage into the river. It can be polluted by the direct discharge of noxious industrial waste and by noxious effluents flowing down from surrounding areas into the river. There is, too, the risk of all pollution from the waters around our coast. The threat of pollution is grave. We want to bring home to the Government and the Minister—we believe he has a receptive ear—the fact that something must be done before it is too late. In 1965 a motion was introduced in the Council of Europe by Mons. Hausau, a Belgian socialist, asking that notice should be taken of the appalling situation then existing in Europe. One of the lakes in Switzerland had reached the point at which no marine life or vegetation could survive. We have not reached that state yet but, unless we do something now, we will reach the stage at which it will cost millions literally to restore the situation.

The Minister's predecessor, Mr. Boland, refused to take any action, refused to recognise that we faced the risk of pollution. It is only when disaster hits that action is taken. At that point coping with the disaster costs the ratepayer and the taxpayer a great deal of money. The Torrey Canyon disaster was a blessing in disguise because Britain was alerted to the danger. Since then quite a number of similar disasters, or near disasters, have occurred. Of course, the problem there is all the greater because of the narrow waters of the English Channel. Down in Cork now we have an oil refinery at Whitegate and the peril is at our doors. Huge tankers come in and out and there is the additional hazard that these tankers are no longer manned by fully trained seamen.

Has the Minister any plans to cope with a major disaster off our coast? I expect we will be told that such a disaster will not be his job; it will be a matter for the Minister for Transport and Power. We want to put control under one Minister and we want that Minister to be in a position to take action immediately a disaster occurs off our coast. I live in a maritime constituency. If a tanker got into trouble off the coast of Wexford and our coastline was polluted I am quite sure that we would be told that it was a matter for Wexford County Council. How on earth could Wexford County Council deal with a major problem like that?

Other countries recognise the seriousness of the situation and other countries have taken action and have specifically designated one overall authority. We have not done that. Our rivers are seriously polluted to the detriment of the tourist industry and our inland fisheries. New diseases in fish have appeared. These are due to pollution. I know scientists have said they could not actually determine the cause, but the fact is that the recent salmon disease did not appear until pollution occurred. The Minister must take these factors into consideration. As Deputy Belton has said, we have a Private Member's Bill which we have not had a chance to introduce. From what I know of Irish parliamentary life after 20 years, when any member of an opposition introduces a Bill, no matter how good it is, he has no chance of getting it through. What Deputy Belton and I, with the other signatories to this motion, hope is that we will get the Government to introduce a Bill. If we get the Government to introduce a Bill I can assure them we will give them all the support we possibly can.

Dr. O'Connell

We in the Labour Party are very anxious to support this motion. If action is taken now in time we can be ahead of other countries who have failed to cope with the problem. Prevention is better than cure.

I know the Local Government Act provides a certain amount of protection but it has been stated in Dublin, and not contradicted by the Minister or his Department, that there are too many loopholes in the law that came into effect on the 1st January. Therefore, it is important that this motion should be supported. It is said that the atmosphere of Dublin is as badly polluted as the atmosphere of Birmingham, Coventry or any of the industrial cities of Britain. A figure of 60 tons of pollution per hour in Dublin has been mentioned. This is a diastrous state of affairs. London has completely cleared its air of pollution and there are birds back in London that have not been seen for generations. It is terrible that we have such air pollution in Dublin and to a lesser extent in Cork and the other major towns.

We have sufficient pollution of the sea to deter tourists and natives from going near the sea. There were 12 doctors who were keen swimmers in Dublin Bay. They protested about the degree of pollution and their statement was contradicted by, I think, the City Medical Officer who said that while there was a high sewage content in the sea it was not very harmful or it was harmless. One doctor said he dived into Dublin Bay and came up with toilet paper across his face. He said the amount of sewage in the sea was enough to deter anyone from going near it and that all our tourists would be turned away if they knew the amount of sewage floating in our sea which has not been properly treated.

Rivers are being polluted unnecessarily, by the discharge into them of effluent. There are not sufficient safeguards against the indiscriminate discharge of effluent into rivers. There is in my constituency a river the condition of which is perhaps the worst in the whole country—the Camac river. It is a disgrace. I have often stood and looked into it. One would never think it was a river. One would think it was just a discharge from a factory. The colour of the water is very interesting. There is never normal water there, just a white, milky liquid which flows down through Inchicore. I had occasion to check recently on the sewage beds at Clondalkin and I understand that there is some discharge but I have been assured that the sewage has been well treated before being discharged into the Camac river. I was astonished to hear this. How sure are we that this sewage which has been discharged into a river that runs through housing schemes has been properly treated?

There are too many loopholes in the law and we would appreciate it if the Minister now took action to prevent indiscriminate polluting of the atmosphere, the rivers and the sea. I brought to the Minister's attention on a number of occasions the discharge from incinerators, in particular one at the Maguire and Paterson match factory. I watch this almost daily and one could hardly credit the amount of pollution it is causing. It was only when I brought it to the Minister's attention that they said they would provide an up-to-date incinerator. This discharge is regurgitating over the city. It is no wonder there are so many bronchitics in Dublin. I think we have more bronchitics than in any other city in Europe. Many industrial firms are allowed to pollute the atmosphere without restriction.

One way to deal with this is to legislate properly so that there will be no loopholes in the law. This was pointed out by an expert on air pollution. I think it was Dr. Chapman of Baggot Street Hospital who is associated with air pollution and who has a special pulmonary unit in that hospital dealing with the results from air pollution. Either he or someone in a similar capacity pointed to the fact that the present legislation is inadequate to deal with this problem. The Minister should agree to this motion so that there will not be a division on it and we can get something done and take action before it is too late.

Mr. Moore

I know Deputy Belton feels very strongly about this matter. This is a problem that faces the civilised world. Pollution is a penalty of civilisation and the uncivilised world has not got this problem. Since we have the problem we must face it and to face it in the most effective and best possible way is a task for this House as the Legislature.

Contrary to what Deputy Dr. O'Connell says I do not think Dublin city is as bad as some of the British cities but that is not a boast. Their pollution should be a warning to us. We have a chance to prevent our city becoming as bad as other cities. I do not think we will ever reach the same degree of industrial pollution as they have across channel because I do not think we will ever reach the same rate of industrialisation. We can learn from the British authorities and what they are doing in order to allow over 50 million people to live there without being poisoned by pollution.

One big feature of the Dublin scene is that some beaches are being polluted by refuse dumping. Refuse is being dumped there because the local authority found it the cheapest way to dispose of refuse. They dumped it first of all at Ringsend and at Fairview and then moved further out. In recent years people became more conscious of this type of menace and the protests started. We must face the fact that if we want to preserve the rivers and beaches we must pay for it. If the corporation decide to get rid of rubbish by incineration we must face the fact that it will cost a great deal of money, much more than the present lackadaisical method of dumping on the strand at Irishtown and Sandymount. I believe the three Deputies for that area have questioned the corporation as to when it will declare that there will be no more dumping in that area. I mentioned this to show we are facing up to it in some way. But we must face the great expense of getting rid of rubbish.

Getting rid of the sewage of the city is another problem and the corporation have plans for the provision of a new outfall works and treatment plant. I do not know when the work will be begun and I do not know if the plant will be sufficient to deal with the ever increasing problem of sewage disposal. We must be sure of one thing, and I hope the Minister will insist on it: that the new plant will be constructed on a scale large enough and that the methods will be sufficiently modern to ensure that no more untreated sewage will be allowed into the rivers or into Dublin bay.

Deputies Belton and O'Connell specified the rivers in the city. It is interesting to note that there are 28 rivers and streams. Some of them are merely streams and some of them are underground. However, we have three or four large rivers. We have the Liffey, the Dodder, the Tolka, the Camac, the Swan and many others. Joyce referred to Anna Livia plurabella and it has been said that Dubliners have a love-hate feeling for the river. They will do nothing to improve it, yet when there is a move to cover part of it in we have an outcry. Their aim should be to beautify the river because Dublin is reputed to be the only capital city in Europe which has a salmon-bearing river running through it. I know about Galway, but Galway is not a capital city.

The Camac is the most polluted river in Ireland, and the Tolka, which flows through the Botanical Gardens, emits a frightful stench at times. The Dodder which flows through my constituency is being destroyed not so much by factory effluent as by people casting their rubbish into it. However, I think a new spirit is awakening and that the people are more co-operative in efforts to see that our rivers are not despoiled. I am afraid that the law which prohibits pollution by industrial effluent is too weak. I served for many years as a member of the Dublin Board of Fishery Conservators and I can tell how hard it is to make a pollution charge stick against an industrial firm. Even when the effluent discharge has been seen entering the river, one must prove that the effluent came from the factory concerned and that it was dangerous to fish life generally.

In this respect, many of our industrial firms seem to be entering the spirit of the 20th century. Their attitude to water pollution is undergoing a change and I know one firm which voluntarily have undertaken to put in a more elaborate filter plant than is required by law. Of course, pollution of rivers cannot be stopped entirely by the law. It can be stopped only if the people, particularly those living near rivers, are determined to stop the despoiling of rivers by careless and indeed criminal acts of dumping rubbish and other filth into them.

I have been dealing with water pollution particularly because it is a big problem in the city. Air pollution is probably more important. If one stands at a bus stop in a busy thoroughfare or at a junction one has to move back from the kerb to avoid the fumes. If one tries to drive behind a heavy lorry one must close all the windows to keep out the polluted air being given off by defective engines. I suggest that our public transport undertaking should look at their buses more carefully to ensure that they are not contributing greatly to air pollution in the cities.

An Foras Forbartha are examining this matter in several cities and they have announced that their preliminary studies will be completed in about a year. We can then look forward to very definite action being taken by the Government. The USA spends a fantastic amount of money on anti-pollution measures in respect of rivers and lakes. We do not have to spend a fraction of that in order to preserve our rivers and our pure air. We must however face the problem energetically. Otherwise we cannot conquer the problem and our people will consequently suffer lung disease and other ailments. When we think of the amounts of money we spend to try to cure people, surely our motto should be that— prevention is much better than cure.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Hear, hear.

Mr. Moore

We must be tough with anybody found polluting rivers or carelessly contributing to air pollution, one of the curses of the 20th century. We deplore the fact that many people take drugs. They suffer from a decision of their own making but disease from pollution of the air is not the result of a decision of any child on his way to school or of any old man or woman who suffers from weak chests and who have their sufferings increased one hundred times by inability to breathe pure air. If the law is too lenient in these matters it is time we looked at it again and saw to it that the penalties are sufficient. I know we should not have to threaten people with the law in order to make them fight pollution, which can do as much damage to the rebel as to the conservative.

I hope that when they come round to examining all the measures that can be taken against pollution the Government will have a centralised unit or a department which will ensure that all anti-pollution laws will be consolidated so that they can be enforced more effectively.

Deputy Esmonde mentioned the case of an oil tanker running ashore on our beaches. This is a possibility but it is unlikely to happen. Oil tankers do not break up very often. The amount of oil consumed in various ways in our community creates problems. In the port of Dublin when there is an oil leakage from a vessel the Dublin Port and Docks Board have an oil boom cast around the vessel and the oil is taken away. It would not be possible to do this if a tanker were beached off Wexford.

We must tackle the problems of air and water pollution. We must modernise the means of disposing of the city's refuse and sewage. We must educate our people to care for our rivers and beaches. We will improve the quality of life in this island by doing so. We may not have the resources of the larger nations but we have a smaller problem in regard to pollution than other countries have. Many other nations have great industrial plants. Britain, the US, France and Germany have many industries. We have an opportunity of seeing for ourselves the fate of other countries, and it would be a crime if we did not benefit from their experience.

Deputy Esmonde has mentioned that one of the lakes in Switzerland has no marine life in it because of pollution. We must pay tribute to the Greater London Council and the London Port Authority for the work they have done on the River Thames. A few years ago a fall into the Thames meant death from poison. These authorities have worked hard and fish life has again appeared in the Thames at London. The river has been cleansed. The Liffey is smaller than the Thames and is not as polluted as the Thames was. We can tackle the problem of the Liffey pollution.

We are all aware of pollution and as individual citizens we must try to prevent it. We must be careful in regard to legislation which we intend to pass in order to ensure that the coming generations will have really fresh air. Pollution must be regarded as a disease which must be conquered.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I was very impressed by Deputy Moore's speech and by his frank recognition of the scale of the problem. I hope we can infer from the Deputy's speech that his party will agree with the motion which is before the House and that the legislation which is asked for will be forthcoming. Such legislation would receive support. It is clear from the discussion that it would receive support from all sides of the House. This problem need not become an issue in party politics.

Deputy Moore made one point which I would like to differ from, but not in any very controversial way. The Deputy said that Dublin was not so bad as some English cities. This may be so. The Deputy recognised what had been done in London. I have seen it stated authoritatively that the level of pollution in Dublin is higher than that in London, not proportionately, but absolutely. I would like to hear comment on that. We have no reason to be proud of this situation when we compare the relative sizes of Dublin and London and the level of industrialisation of the two cities.

Deputy Moore made the point that this problem of pollution was one which could not be dealt with entirely by the law and that the people must be encouraged to play their part. We would all agree with that with the qualification that certain owners of factories have a definite economic interest in pollution. It would cost them money to rectify the problem in their own premises. Life being what it is, they are not likely to do anything until they are obliged to do so. This essentially is where the law comes in. The State, in exhorting members of the public to set about cleansing operations, is in a better position to do so if it shows by positive action that it is seriously concerned about the matter. There is as yet very little concrete sign of serious active concern about the problem. I am informed that harbour authorities can only fine shipowners £10 for discharging oil into a harbour. The cost of paying the fine may be much less than what would be involved in refraining from discharging the oil, which surely should be discouraged.

I lived in New York for some years and it has the sad distinction of being one of the most polluted cities in the world both in regard to water and air. The air pollution was so bad that the act of breathing during certain days of the summer months was accompanied by a positive sensation of disgust and discomfort. On certain bad days during the summer months appeals were broadcast for people to shut their windows and not to go out on the streets if it could be avoided because of the health hazards of air pollution. In New York, as distinct from London, there is a strong tradition of unrestricted free enterprise. One does not interfere with business if it can be avoided. Derisory fines are imposed on firms whose plants and chimneys are belching refuse into the air constantly throughout the day and throughout the year. In London and Paris, as in most European cities, there is a tradition of public responsibility and control, and the public interest coming first and of the right to control anti-social activities by business enterprises being firmly asserted. We on these benches feel that this country is inclined in practice, whatever language we use, to drift more in the New York direction, that is to say to let business rip. There is a significant index there in that the degree of pollution in the city of Dublin in relation to the degree of industrialisation must be one of the highest if not the highest in the world. When I came back here nearly two years ago from New York one of the things I looked forward to was the pleasure of breathing unpolluted air and having unpolluted water around. I found it was not as bad as New York but it certainly was not very good. In fact it was extraordinarily bad for a city of the size of Dublin. Around Howth, where I live, the water is heavily polluted by untreated sewage.

In the constituency I represent the little streams are foul smelling, full of effluent. I was on a deputation today to Dublin Corporation about the state of the Santry River which flows through my constitutency and compares with the Camac River which other Deputies have spoken about here. This problem affects the daily life certainly of everybody in Dublin. People want to know when some halt will be called to this.

The Minister is a relatively new Minister and he has an opportunity to serve the country very well by action on this. The tendency so far has been to treat it as something which can be handled more or less by piecemeal methods, as a matter of routine. The condition of other cities shows it cannot effectively be handled that way. It has to be handled under a general plan and with a policy which puts anti-pollution high on the list. Deputy Moore mentioned the cost of dealing with this problem. The cost may be high but the cost of not dealing with it may be far higher. This has been shown by the example of other cities.

It is clear that tourism will for many years be a major source of revenue for us and one of the opportunities we have in that regard is to offer people from the crowded cities of Europe and America a cleaner and more open environment, which we have had, and which we are in process of letting slip. This is not the main reason for dealing with this problem. The main reason is for the health and comfort of our own citizens and for our concern for the state of this island. We on these benches would like to express the hope that the Minister, in winding up this debate, will hold out to us the clear promise of early legislation, spelling out an integrated conservation policy and a conservation policy with teeth in it which will make it unrewarding for free enterprise to pollute the air and the water.

Mr. Dowling

I would like to take this opportunity to make an appeal to the public, who can play a large part in reducing some of the pollution which takes place by indiscriminate dumping on the roadsides, into the rivers and elsewhere. A start must be made in the schools. We must educate the children and the public at large to ensure that this indiscriminate dumping, which has become part and parcel of life on the perimeter of the city, ceases. People dump things into the small streams and rivers which become polluted.

The Camac, one of the rivers in my own area, can only be described as an open sewer. The city medical officer told us on one occasion that the river was not polluted but an examination by an outside body indicated there was a high level of pollution, that there was no fish life whatever there, that the industrial waste which flowed from the factories adjacent to the Camac was responsible for the large-scale pollution which has taken place in this particular river. You would not need a map on a warm day in summer to find the Camac River which flows through Inchicore, because if you had any sense of smell whatsoever you would find it. The food in the few houses adjacent to this river becomes contaminated if it is kept in the cupboards or presses for long periods during the summer.

The local authority have not taken the necessary action in relation to the elimination of pollution in this particular area. It is unfortunate that for many years the people on the banks of this river had to endure this type of pollution. The colour of the water is an indication of the high level of pollution in this river. We know it comes from industrial centres. I would not advocate that industry should be closed down because of this problem of pollution but I believe industry should be able to equip itself to ensure that the waste which flows from the paper mills and the other factories on the banks of the Camac should be disposed of in the sewers.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

What if they do not take this action themselves?

Mr. Dowling

Some years ago the corporation sent a number of people to study the problem of pollution in other countries in relation to the paper making industry and other industries. They found the type of pollution which takes place in the Camac from the paper mills cannot be eradicated because there is no type of equipment in those mills and factories to do this work. If the pollution from the paper mills and the factories was diverted into the sewers the rivers would become clean. There is a sewerage problem in this particular area at the moment and I know it is not possible to have this waste siphoned off into the sewers. The necessary action should be taken at this stage, where industries are being developed, to ensure they have the necessary devices and the necessary means for eradication of pollution from their factories.

When this matter was raised at the local authority we were told that the alternative to the pollution of the Camac was the closing down of industry. I do not advocate this and I am quite sure no Deputy in the House advocates that industry which has been there for long periods should be closed down. However, I believe every effort should be made to eliminate pollution.

We know that CIE are another concern who pollute the city. What I can only describe as a kind of "black death" is pumped out at bus stops. In many cases CIE buses have their terminus stage in the centre of housing estates. When these vehicles are started people who live in nearby houses must close their doors and windows because of the fumes that are caused by the buses.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy move the adjournment of the debate?

Mr. L. Belton

Has the Chair any idea when this debate will be resumed?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When Private Members' Time is resumed.

Mr. L. Belton

Has the Chair any idea when that will be?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When Government business so allows.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Could we have any intimation from the Minister whether he is in favour of this motion?

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Molloy)

I have established an all-Department committee which is considering fully the question of air and water pollution. They will make recommendations to me on the need for any new legislation if they consider such legislation desirable. I appreciate the tone of the debate. I am very concerned about this matter; it disgusts me to see polluted water. I am also concerned about air pollution. There is legislation available to us at present which I am anxious to see enforced more rigidly. The committee to which I have referred are carrying out a thorough investigation into this matter and they will be making a report to me. The committee was appointed some months ago—I thought the House was aware of this fact.

In relation to the pollution of the sea by oil spillage from tankers, full responsibility has been given to me by the Government to set up machinery to cope with any disaster in this area. I have been in touch with the coastal local authorities and I have asked county engineers to take preliminary steps in the event of such a disaster while I am making overall arrangements to cover this position generally in the future.

Mr. L. Belton

When does the Minister expect to get a report from this committee? Has there been any time limit set down?

Mr. Molloy

It is only too easy for a Minister to say "very soon" or "shortly". It will take a considerable time to carry out a full investigation and to submit positive recommendations. The water resources division of An Foras Forbartha are carrying out extensive quality tests on all the rivers throughout the country. This kind of information is essential before any positive decisions are made in order to establish the extent of pollution. However, we must be thankful that the situation certainly is not critical in this country. I would be keen to ensure if legislation was required to preserve the natural environment that we would have that legislation.

I should like to emphasise that the situation is not critical. We have localised water pollution. The river Camac is in a disgusting state and other rivers in Dublin are in a bad state. However, in regard to this problem generally we are lucky. The operation of the 1963 Planning and Development Act gives local authorities and the Minister dealing with appeals very strong powers to ensure that new industrial development is constructed in such a way that it will not contribute to pollution of water and air. There are very strict regulations, and regulations regarding atmospheric pollution came into force at the beginning of this year. We have been doing a lot and the situation is still under close examination by an all-Department committee. I take it this motion will not come before the House again before the autumn, by which time I hope to have the report.

Debate adjourned.