In this country we have only a very small minority of conservationists, preservationists and amenity bodies who play an invaluable role in keeping the pollution issue alive. Social consciousness has been awakened to a degree by a vociferous few, who vehemently objected to the proposed siting of the smelter plant at Little Island, County Cork, by the few who deplored the neglect that led to the breach of the industrial effluent tank in Tuam and by the angling groups who are dismayed and frustrated by the everincreasing pollution of our rivers with subsequent loss of all fish life. Some of these have been dismissed as cranks and fusspots, others as academics who show no regard or consideration for industrial progress and the desperate need to create more employment.
I suggest that those people are genuinely concerned and fully realise the urgent need to strike a harmonious balance between industrial progress and control of the environment. I am convinced that men like Professor Scott of University College, Cork, who has been a very outspoken critic, would only be too willing to work with industry and local authorities to develop pragmatic solutions to their environmental problems. The issue of pollution, because we are not yet in a huge environment crisis, has not entered the political arena but this is already happening in the US, Britain, Sweden, Germany and in many other countries. Now is the time to act before it is too late. It behoves the Government to initiate a comprehensive scheme for the control and protection of the environment. A start can be made by passing legislation and ensuring its strict enforcement.
In this regard we should carefully examine how other countries have tackled the problem of pollution and we might well benefit from their experiences. Sweden has been exemplary in its approach. Its 1969 environmental protection law is generally recognised as a masterpiece in legislation and its declared aim is that all industry should do everything technically possible and economically feasible to keep production processes from deleteriously affecting the environment.
Sweden has made some impressive, technical achievements in the pollution control field. These range from air bubbling processes with applications in revitalising polluted lakes and protecting harbours from oil leakage and sulphur dioxide to scrubbers and advanced techniques for the treatment of sewage and industrial waste. The Royal Swedish Environmental Protection Board have very considerable powers and it is generally recognised that they are doing a tremendous job. They have powers to grant subsidies to industries and communities constructing pollution control apparatus. They have powers in determining areas to be set aside for nature reserves. They also act as an environmental watchdog and they advise on industrial applications for licences.
Britain, too, from its legislation, namely the Clean Air Act and the Alkali Act, has benefited considerably. If we have a look at the main pollutants we find that these consist of industrial effluent, raw sewage, pesticide residues, intensive farm excreta and fertiliser run-off, diesel fumes and, indeed, noise. We must examine each separately to see how best we can control them without inhibiting progress. We must strike a balance between economic quantity and the quality of our life.
We find, if we consider industrial effluent, that some of the worst offenders are creameries and food processing plants. What must we do? We must ensure that all new plants being constructed are fitted with the most modern pollution control devices and planning permission must be refused by the local authorities unless this is complied with. Secondly, we must devise a scheme of subsidies for existing industries to install the necessary apparatus.
Some of the very common industrial pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, the hydrocarbons and the oxides of nitrogen. We do not know what their precise effect is or the full potential of their dangers but we must be fully aware that they are dangers. We must be careful about the dumping of toxic materials inland because of possible water contamination. We must realise, too, that the sea's capacity to absorb and dilute waste is enormous but not infinite. We must remember, too, that a substantial proportion of productive fisheries are located in shallow waters. Unless we now exercise the greatest caution we will do enormous damage that may take decades to rectify.
I feel I should mention here the proposed smelter plant at Little Island. If one is to take an objective, impartial view one will realise that with a very high concentration of industry around the harbour and the pumping of industrial effluent in huge quantities together with massive quantities of raw sewage into it, we run the risk of converting our beautiful harbour into a stinking cess-pool. Against that we must weigh our critical unemployment situation in Cork and the urgent need to create thousands of jobs. Therefore, if all pollution control devices are fitted, which should include sulphur dioxide scrubbers and filters, and if a monitoring station is constructed to keep a 24-hour watch on the possible emission of harmful toxic materials, then economic necessity may weigh in favour of its approval. I also say that this approval should be dependent on a written assurance of the creation of at least 400 permanent jobs and adequate insurance for the farmers of east Cork against possible damage to their lands and loss of profits from their agricultural industry. If these guarantees are not forthcoming then we should think again about granting approval. We must have a guarantee of a satisfactory level of employment for a stipulated number of years and in default the payment of massive compensation. We cannot be too careful. There is far too much at stake for us in Cork to view matters lightly.
I should like to say a few words about the unloading of untreated sewage into rivers by local authorities, probably our major source of pollution. The cost of correcting this immediately would be prohibitive. We must ensure, however, that all new systems conform to a planned pattern. At present, towns surrounded by a network of rivers and streams simply discharge into the closest stream to the site. If at some future date a plant is needed, the cost will be very high because the outlets will be scattered over a wide area.
If, on the other hand, all the outlets ran into a single outfall, a single pipe would suffice to discharge the sewage to the treatment plant, and it should be made compulsory for local authorities to designate one or two major outlets into which all new outlets will be run. If this is not practicable it should be stipulated that all new outlets must run into existing outlets.
Unless we begin to make provision for the future here we cannot possibly hope to contain or to rectify our serious pollution problem and at this stage I must ask the Minister immediately to make available money for the construction of a sewage disposal unit in Midleton. The whole backwash of the inner harbour between Ballinacurra and Midleton is stinking. One has to see it at first hand to realise how bad it is. Its condition has been brought about by the pumping of huge quantities of untreated sewage into it and it has been worsened of late by industrial effluent. It has silted up in recent years and now its stench is nauseating. It certainly constitutes a serious health hazard to the people of Midleton and Ballinacurra. This work must be given priority and must be completed before next summer. Otherwise there could be an epidemic in Midleton.
I have mentioned pollutants from industry and the pollution caused by raw sewage. I should like to say now that the agricultural sector provides its pollutants mainly in the form of pesticide residues, fertiliser run off and drainage from silage pits. All these make a very high demand on oxygen in the water, thus killing fish and other life. Fishing is a very important part of our tourist attraction as well as being the main source of livelihood of many of our people. We must exercise strict control over proper drainage pits for silage effluent.
With regard to pesticides, there is striking evidence that we should endeavour to end all use of organochlorine pesticides. Not enough is known of their harmful effects but what is known leaves serious doubts about the advisability of their use. The permissible residue level for food in the United States is extremely low and these levels are being fixed in Great Britain in the near future. We must keep a very close eye on this to ensure that our exports of beef, lamb and processed foods will continue to remain acceptable on those markets. The indestructibility of the organo-chlorines is extremely worrying. So is their huge concentration in the biosphere, assessed at several million tons. Organochlorine and organo-mercury fungicides have become global contaminants. We have evidence of the damage caused by the spillage of quantities of the organochlorine insecticide endosulean into the river Rhine in 1969 which caused the deaths of millions of fish. Usages of these insecticides and fungicides should be controlled by the Government.
Farmers, too, should be warned of the danger of washing out spraying machines and dumping used containers in water courses. I suggest widespread adoption of the criteria proposed in the document prepared by the Council of Europe Working Party on Poisonous Substances in Agriculture would go far to standarise procedure in Western Europe. We have a duty to ourselves and to all nations to ensure that we conform to the standards laid down.
One of the causes of pollution that is very often overlooked is detergent. Our people should be made aware of the dangers of indiscriminate use of detergents, particularly those containing enzymes. It has been proved in England that the most up to date sewage plants are only 90 per cent efficient in dealing with synthetic detergents. Normal bacterial action is only 65 per cent efficient. Enzymes also cause respiratory disorders such as asthma and bronchitis, and exposure to them can result in allergies. I suggest that the Government, and the Minister for Local Government in particular, should warn the general public on the possible dangers from the misuse of enzyme detergents.
Two other pollutants are diesel fumes and noise. As we know, some lorry owners are particularly bad offenders where diesel fumes are concerned. The law should be strictly enforced in this matter and heavy penalties imposed on those who disregard it. Where noise is concerned, we must carefully set down standards of permissible noise levels. In England, 45 per cent of the population are estimated to live on roads with an undesirable level of noise. We should not be lax in this country particularly with young offenders who remove silencers from motorcycles and cars and who thus cause particular hardship to the aged.
The cost benefit analysis of pollutant control is the necessary starting point for a decision and I would propose a central government economics unit for this purpose. Regular monitoring of existing levels is required if the dangers of pollution are to be assessed intelligently. Regular monitoring may be more effective than routine analysis of the environment. We could beneficially use our existing university resources and, indeed, the goodwill and the concern shown by university people to combat the pollution problems which are now besetting us.
I would propose that a special section, under the Minister for Local Government, with complete responsibility for environmental protection, should be formed and a staff member should be attached to each county council. By introducing effective, comprehensive legislation and by doing so now we can make considerable advances within our existing resources. I would, therefore, call on the Minister for Local Government to introduce this legislation without delay and ensure that our atmosphere will be pure and our rivers and lakes free from pollution in the very near future.
