Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 14 Mar 1972

Vol. 259 No. 10

Private Members' Business. - Waters Preservation Bill, 1972: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. O'Higgins

In this Bill which has been before the House for some hours now, an effort has been made by Deputy Belton and the Fine Gael Deputies associated with him to direct public attention, if direction is needed, to a problem which is now regarded as a very serious one. There has been growing concern in recent years over the gradual and apparently inevitable destruction of the natural amenities of our country. This growing awareness of what is happening is probably in accord with a consciousness which also exists in many other countries. It is timely that we should express concern now because we still have time to avoid many of the consequences that pollution has brought to the Continent and other parts of the world.

Pollution is a term which can have many connotations. When we speak of conservation as an antedote to pollution we ought to mean the keeping of our land, air, water and our wild life in a state of preservation. This Bill does not seek to deal with the general problem of pollution or generally to demand conservation. It deals with a limited area of water pollution. In that respect the point has already been made, and it is no harm to make it again, that putting various polluting materials into water has been recognised as a social wrong for many years. It first became a matter for legislation when what was being done in the way of pollution interfered with the private fishing rights which flourished so extensively at the end of the last century. There have also been instances in our internal administration and our legislation where the general social harm being done by pollution has been recognised.

Our trouble in relation to the present state of the law and our present administrative code is that there are too many bodies that have a limited responsibility in this respect. The various boards of conservators have a responsibility in relation to rivers and lakes within their districts. Local authorities also have responsibility. There are any number of authorities that have some responsibility for certain parts of the fresh waters within our territory. That certainly has not meant a move towards uniform control or the bringing about of any uniform policy to deal with pollution. In our statute law and in the regulations which apply there is a tremendous scattering of statutory provisions and a general confusion as to what the law is or ought to be.

At the moment there is nothing to prevent a local authority polluting a lake which it controls and owns by direct sewage outflow into that lake. Indeed, many local authorities have purchased rights to do that in many of the small lakes and water areas throughout the country. That is apparently regarded as a tolerable thing to do if private rights are not interfered with. Of course, that kind of disposal of town or urban sewage is in fact the destruction of an amenity which exists in the local authority area even if private rights are not being interfered with.

The introduction of this Bill is to direct attention to this problem, but generally speaking the purpose of the Bill is to start a thinking in this House which will lead to some national policy with regard to the preservation of unpolluted water, both fresh water and in the seas contiguous to our country. I believe this is essential because, if we permit the situation to be as it has been, not only will we gradually destroy the natural amenities available to our own community, but it will have a very drastic effect on this country in regard to its tourist attractions. We will certainly affect the health and well-being of our own people.

We suggest that this problem is serious, that it has grown in seriousness in recent years and that it is urgent now that some action be taken. This Bill proposes that there shall be, in accordance with its terms, responsibility placed on one single authority, the Minister for Local Government. He will have the responsibility of seeing, as a long-term objective, that our inland waters, and the seas that wash our shores, will have a standard of purity which he, after advice and having regard to local circumstances, will declare. It is clear that there must be a standard. Reference has been made to the Royal Commission standards at the end of the last century. We have had a situation over the years in which those standards were observed in relation to moving waters. I just cannot recall whether Royal Commission standards dealt with lakes and still waters, but certainly we have the problem of polluted rivers and polluted lakes, and we ought to be in a position to declare in relation to any particular group of waters in any country what a proper standard should be.

Presumably such a standard would have regard to the degree of use being made of the waters which cannot be avoided and which may be in part traditional, and maybe in relation to certain waters, a standard lower than in other parts of the country might be declared and adopted. Certainly if this approach commends itself to the House I would hope that in the areas in the country—thank goodness they are still many and diverse—in which pollution has not come about, the standard of purity declared for those waters would be as high as possible.

The idea, in any event, is that the Minister would have the responsibility to declare a standard or standards of purity, and that, having declared a standard of purity for the different waters that we control, he and his Department would under, presumably, a chain of command, see that this standard is achieved or preserved. If the particular waters have a degree of pollution which is higher than the standard declared by the Minister, then that is a situation which requires remedial action. It will have to be observed if the Minister merely declares an existing standard of purity in any waters to be tolerable.

The point is that under this proposal there will emanate an active policy from the Minister's Department in relation to the different counties, regions and local authority areas throughout the country in order to ensure that this problem is contained, dealt with and solved. These proposals should commend themselves to Deputies on all sides of the House. No matter what constituency we represent, each one of us, unfortunately, hears from time to time of cases of pollution, destruction of fish life, the disappearance of local amenities, all these things which makes one sad for our country and for the environment in which we live.

It is of the utmost importance that this kind of problem should be approached with goodwill and tolerance by Deputies on all sides of the House. I should not like to feel that the Minister or any Deputies who normally support the Minister in this House would become complacent in relation to the powers of the legal provisions which are there now. Certainly any expression of complacency would be utterly unjustified.

I can well understand the Minister or other Deputies saying: "The proposal in this Bill is not sound, is imperfect or has a whole lot of loopholes in it." This Bill is merely offered as the collective work of a number of Deputies from this side of the House. We do not for a moment suggest that it is the only way to deal with this common problem. However, I would hope, in any event, that the existence of the problem would be recognised by all Deputies and that the need for action, for reform in our law, for the declaration of some kind of policy, the development of appropriate machinery, would be accepted, and that, if it is accepted, if this measure does not commend itself, some alternative proposal will come before us.

We shall be judged in our time not merely by the manner in which we face up to the social problems of our day, to the economic or political problems which face us, but also by the manner in which we have sought to preserve the environment and our particular surroundings. It would be a desperate and a very sad thing if by inaction, lethargy, complacency or whatever it may be, we destroyed for those to come after us the amenities which are found so generously in this country. That is the purpose of the Bill. I hope that the debate which we have had up to this, which has been a good debate conducted on a very high level, will continue and that from the introduction of this Bill and the debate upon its proposals we shall have evidence that we are taking steps towards dealing with this problem.

Mr. Dowling

I should like to associate myself with many of the comments that have already been made in relation to the desirability of indicating certain standards so that the position in regard to pollution will not deteriorate. The pollution situation at the moment is a very grave one, one that possibly has been neglected over a long number of years, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister and his Department have from time to time drawn attention to the matter.

The problems of pollution are many and varied. Examining them on a local or national basis provides much food for thought. As Deputy O'Higgins and other Deputies have said, it is essential to indicate standards.

If we examine the many forms of pollution occuring throughout the country we find that nearly all of them are being tackled in different ways in other countries with success. Other countries have succeeded in salvaging for use as fertilisers and otherwise a certain amount of sewage. They have built plants for the treatment of sewage and in that way have converted some of it to beneficial use in their respective economies. We should follow their example; we should build similar plants for the treatment of sewage. In that way not only would we be relieving people's distress from pollution but we would be creating materials for use in other spheres. While referring to sewage disposal, surely there must be other outlets than the sea for it. Discharging raw sewage into the sea causes great distress to people living nearby.

There are many tip-heads to be seen throughout the country and I feel sure that in the same way as with sewage the materials in these tips could be converted for use in industry. We have only to think back to the last war to appreciate the various uses these materials could be put to. The same is true of other countries. This would in turn benefit the economy because it would mean fewer imports of iron and other such materials. These tip-heads contain a lot of scrap iron which could easily be converted into ingots for use in industry.

Most Deputies referred to particular cases of pollution. I represent Dublin south-west through which the River Camac flows. It is an open sewer where it flows through Inchicore and Old Kilmainham and it causes great distress to people living beside it. Much of the pollution comes from industrial waste and I am afraid we must prescribe new standards in this respect. In the case of the Camac the pollution comes from the paper mills, the owners of which have made endeavours to reduce this pollution. There is no fish life to be noticed in the stretch of the river between the paper mills and the Liffey. The people have called for it to be culverted but this apparently is too costly and it is to be left as it is. This river has caused a lot of sickness in the area. Most of the houses adjacent to its banks have been demolished and no others are to be built to replace them, which is an indication of the distress caused there by pollution. This river is the most polluted in the country and I ask the Minister to have the case examined. I have spoken about it here and elsewhere on many occasions.

I hope that this Bill or other Bills which will be introduced dealing with pollution will help to relieve the distress of people living near stretches of polluted water. I can speak with authority of the Camac which is in my constituency. The water has been tested on many occasions. I suggest that the industries responsible should be forced to pay more attention to the health of the people who have to live on the banks of such rivers.

The river Camac is heavily polluted and this applies to other rivers also. When the public know that a river is polluted and that there is no fish life in it they tend to increase the amount of waste matter that they dump in the river. I have sympathy with the other speakers who spoke about the problems in their areas. For a number of years I lived near the Camac river. One would not need a map to find the river; all that was needed was a good sense of smell. The problem is particularly grave during the summer months. The Camac pollutes the river Liffey as it flows from Kingsbridge to the centre of the city. I hope that new industries will not be allowed to discharge their waste into the river. I know that when planning applications are made there are restrictions laid down with regard to pollution and this is to be welcomed. In the case of established industries which pollute our rivers, I hope some effort will be made to ensure that this pollution is eliminated as much as possible.

Some industries think that they can discharge all kinds of effluent into our rivers. In some cases they construct drains that carry some of the waste; this waste is filtered into lands that are not the property of the firm concerned and in this way damage is caused to such property. These drains are discovered by local authorities when they undertake roadworks. Frequently it may be years after the drains have been constructed and considerable damage is caused.

In my area we have a problem with regard to the dumping of old cars. Frequently they are left for the local authorities to take away to a tiphead. Most of these cars are wrecks and frequently children are injured when they play in them. I would suggest that an initial charge should be placed on the car when it is purchased and this would not be returned until the car is disposed of finally. The local authority or the Government would have the money necessary to dispose of the car. This would ensure that some responsibility could be attached to someone. This system is used in other countries and I understand it works successfully. The problem is greater in the cities than in country areas and I would ask the Minister to consider the suggestion I have made.

At the moment the practice is to leave the old car in an area far from the owner's home and it is difficult to trace him. In some cases he can be traced by checking on the number plates or the chassis numbers but sometimes the numbers are removed. There must be some way round the present problem. If a person leaves his car in a built-up area he causes problems for the residents. The Garda are unable to take action until they are satisfied that there is no owner——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that the Bill deals with the preservation of waters.

Mr. Dowling

Eventually these cars are dumped in streams and in rivers. This problem must be tackled. The disposal of industrial waste is a problem. Many local authorities have failed to make provision for the disposal of such waste. In Dublin city and county the local authorities have been more than cautious in making available areas where industrial waste can be disposed of. On the south side of the city it is a major problem. On one occasion there was leakage from an oil tanker and a leakage of 5,000 gallons caused a considerable amount of trouble. Unless we can find an efficient way to dispose of industrial waste it will be dumped in rivers and lakes.

For a number of years industrial waste in Dublin south-west and Dublin south had to be dumped in the north of the city. Industrialists tend to dump this waste at the most convenient point and the inevitable result is that the river or stream nearby is polluted or damage is caused to another person's property. The dumping of industrial waste and the availability of sites are major problems in our city. When industrial waste is dumped into streams, seepage containing chemicals has found its way on to the roadways and damage has been caused to clothing. In addition, it has been injurious to young children who have met with accidents as a result of this seepage.

While there are responsible people in the waste disposal business operating to very high standards, there are others whose standards are not so high and who are not very concerned where waste is dumped provided they get it away from the industrial area concerned. We know that many drums of industrial waste containing large amounts of acid have been found adjacent to industrial estates in Dublin south-west in recent times and have been allowed to go into the nearest stream which, in fact, was the Camac. It could happen with any stream in any place.

Another source of pollution of rivers and lakes in the area arises from the dumping of plastic containers which float on the surface and tend to become entangled in bushes and cause unsightly obstructions. It is very important to keep the waterways clear and it is a necessity that cannot be overlooked. In some cases the local authorities are to some extent responsible for some of the waste disposal problems. Lack of sewage facilities is a particular problem in my area. Sufficient sewerage facilities were not available for many years to meet development requirements. Sewerage development such as the Grand Canal scheme is essential. This scheme was on the books for a number of years but it was impeded by political pressures and this has caused problems. Twelve or 15 years ago we in Dublin Corporation thought that the Grand Canal scheme would be under way in a year or two but we now find that no start has yet been made on the scheme. This is the type of scheme that can relieve many of the pressures from industry, housing, small factories and workshops from which waste is now finding its way into the cesspools we see studded throughout the south side of Dublin.

On one occasion during a corporation survey of an open space in Inchicore — Grattan Crescent — it was found that there were many unauthorised drains there. Apparently the corporation would have to take responsibility or else find the source, which could be quite a distance away. If they failed to locate the source, apparently they would have to take in charge and service these drains if this development was to take place at Inchicore. If the Grand Canal scheme had been got under way the number of people tending to use the Camac and such other outlets would be reduced. For that reason it is essential that in tackling the problem in regard to rivers, lakes and streams we should also tackle the bigger problem of defects in the sewerage system. That problem arises in this city. I am glad that we have on one side the Dodder Valley scheme which will relieve many of the pressures and problems that would develop if the scheme had not been provided. The longer the Grand Canal scheme is put in abeyance the greater the temptation to industrialists, factory owners, backlane workshops and private houses with possibly unauthorised extensions to find their own way of disposing of their waste. At present, the sewer, being overloaded, cannot take any more.

The Camac and other rivers in a similar condition tend to become rat-infested and so create further problems. Highly-polluted rivers are always rat-infested despite the efforts of local authorities through organisations for elimination of these pests. Where there is heavy pollution you always have this additional problem which is a major one and one which will have to be taken into account by whatever standards are introduced at any stage.

While the Bill does not meet all requirements, it goes some of the way and has shown the necessity for clear thinking on pollution. Much has been said and done in regard to pollution in the past by various Ministers. Substantial efforts have been made to eliminate the problem or reduce it to some extent but more deliberate action must be taken now to ensure that we rid ourselves of pollution.

We also know that another factor of pollution is the detergents pumped into open streets. Some pools near the city in which people bathed in summer were found to contain chemicals, detergents of some kind or other which caused grievous injury. To a great extent, the problem boils down to having a proper sewerage system in the first instance. The problem is a very large one covering a variety of fields and needs to be examined in a highly technical, effective and efficient way if we are to ensure its elimination. The Bill has spotlighted the problem and may give many people food for thought. We should all ensure that we do our own part by advising or assisting local authorities and communities in their anti-pollution efforts. Public representatives have a particular role to play, apart from whatever role the Department may play or any measures the Government may introduce to eliminate pollution.

We should encourage the various groups and in particular tenants organisations to play their part in ensuring that residents do not contribute to the problem of pollution. A very special effort must be made to ensure that industrialists meet their responsibilities in this regard. I have no wish to see any industrialist going out of business because of failure to meet his responsibilities but, at the same time, no lame excuse should be accepted from any industrialist who is found to be responsible for the creation of pollution. Adequate information and technical know-how is available to anyone who seeks it. I hope that whatever legislation is enacted will be effective in preserving the rivers and lakes so that instead of being the cesspools that some of them now are, they will be a joy to future generations.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I suppose we must be grateful to the Minister for allowing this Bill to be introduced and discussed but so far both he and his Parliamentary Secretary have maintained a remarkable silence as to whether the Bill is to be accepted. The Parliamentary Secretary did interject the other day to say that the Planning Act was sufficient to ensure that our waters would not be polluted. He said that when planning permission was being given the applicant was required to give a guarantee to the planning authority that he would not cause the polluting of water. That is not preventive legislation. There is no preventive legislation here in respect of the pollution of our waterways.

In relation to other countries we are in an advantageous position here in that our rivers flow through no other countries, such as happens in Europe when rivers flow through four or five different countries so that pollution can come downstream from one country to another. The fact that we only began to industrialise recently does not mean necessarily that our rivers will not be polluted by industrial waste. The House may be interested to hear the figures for the use of water. Of the amount of water we use, 10 per cent is for domestic use, 55 per cent is used for agriculture and 35 per cent for industry. It is interesting to note also that of the world water supply — included in this are the lakes, rivers, seas and oceans— only 2 per cent is fresh water and of that 2 per cent the great proportion is under the ice caps at the North and South Poles. Therefore, anyone who believes that there is an unlimited supply of fresh water in this world will have to start thinking again. Some hydrologists have stated that the greatest problem facing the world today is the impurity of water. This can be borne out largely by the facts in other countries and I might place a few of these facts on record here for the benefit of the Minister and his advisers in helping them in their decision to accept this Bill.

The United States is a highly industrialised country. The situation there now in respect of fresh water supplies is so bad that they are dependent largely on the desalinization of sea water. One of the greatest water experts in the world has stated that all the impurities that go into rivers and lakes find their way ultimately into the sea. Therefore, while the answer to the problem of procuring pure water for domestic and other purposes might seem to be the continued desalinization of sea water, it must be remembered that the seas are being polluted also. There is one important fact to be borne in mind in relation to lakes and that is that if pollution sinks to the bottom it takes a very long time to eliminate it. The process of purifying the waters is intensive, expensive and totally destructive to marine life. Running waters have the capacity to re-oxygenate themselves but lakes do not have that capacity. If we want an example of that we could take practically all the lakes in Europe. These are impure at the moment and practically all of them are devoid of vegetable or fish life in any form. That very big lake which touches Switzerland, Germany and France, Lake Constance, is completely polluted and has no life of any sort but an extremely expensive process of cleaning it has commenced.

In the early part of this century there was a salmon conservancy board for the purpose of protecting the salmon fisheries of the Rhine but there is nothing left in the Rhine now except a few eels. This river would be polluted largely by industrial waste. It has been designated as the sewer of Europe. I am putting forward these facts to indicate that we are in the position yet of being able to save what fresh waters we have but if we do not take action to do this we will find ourselves in the same position as those other countries and our fisheries will be affected seriously by this pollution.

A couple of weeks ago there was an article in the Sunday Independent on Lough Sheelin. This is one of the lakes on which fishery conservation boards have spent a lot of money. The lake is the best trout fishing one in the country and it also carries a lot of coarse fish. Therefore, it is one of our great tourist amenities for fishermen. However, the lake is being polluted by pig slurry and the trouble is that that is the sort of pollution that sinks to the bottom of the lake and will ultimately totally destroy marine life there. I understand that about 10,000 dead trout have been seen floating on the lake recently. I do not know how much it would cost to restore the lake to its normal condition. The pollution of this lake should serve as a warning to the Department of Local Government and should make them realise the necessity for effective legislation. A lot of money has been spent on Lough Sheelin as a tourist amenity.

I am told that the early sign of the pollution of a lake is the appearance of algae in large quantities. About two years ago I went to a lake to fish for pike and to my horror I discovered that it was covered entirely with algae. I have to tell the Chair that I fished there all day but caught nothing. Probably there was nothing left for me to catch. Algae appears at certain times of the year in certain lakes. In small quantities it is a useful fish feed but its appearance in large quantities indicates a dying lake.

In the majority of our urban areas there has been a reliance on rivers for the disposal of sewage. I was in south Tipperary about a year ago and I noticed there that the Suir, which was quite a famous trout lake at one stage, is polluted but has not reached the point of total pollution. On making inquiries locally I was given to understand that some sort of treatment disposal works were being brought into effect there. Down through the years sewage from Clonmel has gone directly into the river. One might say that in practically every town the nearest waterways have been utilised for the disposal of sewage. Unless that practice is stopped, the results will be disastrous. Of course we get plenty of rain here but we have not a tremendous quantity of water at our disposal. In Gorey there is a leather factory and for years the waste from that factory was directed into a small river. The farmers of the area protested against this but they had to endure the situation for years. Ultimately, about 12 cattle belonging to one farmer were poisoned and the man got anthrax. It was then that the medical authorities came into the picture with whatever powers they had at their disposal. The result was that the factory piped whatever waste they had into the sea and a treatment plant was installed. This involved piping it for four or five miles but it meant that the farmers were able to use the water of the river without any fear. Legislation is needed that will empower the Minister to ensure that no untreated sewage is allowed flow into any river. There are many places in this country where treatment works are required.

To give some idea of what sewage disposal means when it is on a large scale I might refer to the River Seine which provides water for two million people in Paris. Above the city there are only 15 noxious germs per cubic centimetre. That would not poison anybody, but below Paris there are 1½ million noxious germs per cubic centimetre. This means that the water in that part of the river is a sewer. It may take us a long time to reach that unhappy situation but it would be possible for us at the moment to resolve the question at very little expense. First, legislative powers should be given to the Minister to enable him to ensure that every area that is discharging waste has treatment works.

Coastal towns may argue that, because they are coastal, the tide takes the discharge out to sea. That is not the answer. The sea can take a certain amount of waste, but it cannot go on taking waste indefinitely. There are too many problems involved. There is an agreement under which ships are not supposed to dump noxious waste, such as oil, within a certain distance of the shore. There are nations which are not signatories to this agreement and so the agreement cannot be made fully operative.

One of the causes of pollution is silage. Silage is a comparatively new development here. The effluent from silage can be a serious source of pollution and legislation will be required to prevent this pollution. Pig slurry is another pollutant. In the Border counties pig production is an important industry. In that area, too, there are important waterways and lakes. Now one cannot expect one man to take steps to ensure that everything is perfect while his neighbours do nothing at all. It comes back then to legislation.

Deputy Belton's Bill emphasises that we recognise there is a pollution problem. Everybody must accept that there is such a problem. The Bill will give the Minister power to introduce the necessary legislation and, in that legislation, he will have public support because the vast majority of our people are seriously concerned about pollution. I cannot understand why the Tourist Board have not made some move in this matter long ago. They must know that we are facing a deteriorating situation. From the health point of view pollution is very serious. Some 30 or 40 years ago someone put a dead donkey into a stream close to a school. This was fairly near where I lived at the time. I think 12 boys died of typhoid fever. Of course they did not have the treatment 30 years ago to deal with typhoid. This shows the extreme danger of polluted water. The donkey rotted and the stream flowed towards a well on which the school was dependent for water. Apart from the 12 who died quite a number of boys went down with typhoid fever and the school had to be closed for three or four months. That was long before the Minister became Minister for Local Government. In fact I think it was before he was born.

I ask the Minister to consider the responsibility he carries in this matter. His predecessor, Mr. Kevin Boland, was questioned many times on this matter. His reply always was that there was plenty of legislation to deal with the matter. Nobody has power except the medical officers of health and all they can do is to try to catch an individual and bring him to justice. That is no use. When that happens the individual says: "I was brought to justice. Everybody else is doing the same thing and they are not brought to justice." This must be an overall, national business.

I should like to see the Minister accepting this Bill but I will not be surprised if he does not because there seems to be a theory in this House that if the Government accept something brought in by the Opposition they are lowering their prestige. I hasten to assure them that their prestige is at a level now at which I think it will stay for some time. I do not think it will go up and I do not think this will bring it down any more. I ask the Minister to accept this Bill, but if he is not going to accept it I would ask him to appoint a water board straight away and to appoint to that water board not a lot of political hacks but people who know something about the question, people who have studied it and who are experts on it. There should be somebody on it with an extensive knowledge of bacteriology and also somebody dealing largely with public health and water supply. There should also be people from the conservation board, people associated with fisheries and with tourism. A little help might even be got from Bord Fáilte if they were awakened to their responsibilities in relation to fishing and tourism.

Within a reasonable time a water board should be able to give the Minister a report on what would be necessary and I am sure the first suggestion they would make would be that the Minister should give them legislation because they would be unable to do anything without legislation. If we do not have legislation in the lifetime of this Dáil we will face a crisis in and around the big centres. If the Liffey was investigated I do not suppose it would come up to the high standard of the Seine for bugs, but it would probably be found that there were several hundred thousands of bugs to the cubic centimetre. I would not like to drink the Liffey water. Sometimes I do not like to be too near the Liffey because I get a fairly strong "sniff" from it. I certainly would not like to bathe in it. In summer I see quite a number of young fellows bathing near the Custom House. I think they are taking a considerable risk. If you do not get typhoid fever from bathing in polluted water you can get a urinary infection, a bacteriological or bacillus coli infection of the urine which may take years and years to cure. In fact, it is one of these things that is more or less incurable and can only be kept down by specific treatment.

These are the problems the Minister should assess. He should forget the political side of it. Maybe when he goes back to his constituency he will be told that he accepted a Fine Gael Bill. That is nonsense. We need to grow up politically in this country. We need to work, at times anyway, in this House for the benefit of the people as a whole. This is a vital matter.

I was reading a Council of Europe document, which I meant to bring in with me, on the policy for environment. Some of the experts there say that the degree of pollution that has been reached in Europe and in the United States is even more serious to the life of the people than the risk of a major war. The British have acknowledged this problem. They have been dealing with it. They have purified their waters. They have organised their industry and they have legislation to control pollution there. Although they have more big factories, more chemical works and things like oxides and lead that pollute waters, they have managed to keep their waters pure. I would strongly advise the Minister to take the advice of British experts on this because they have had the problem on their doorstep and they have solved it. The only other people in Europe who seem to have got under the job are the Swedes. They have made a pretty useful attack on pollution. The difficulty of central Europe is that the Rhine and the Rhone flow through practically all the countries there and it is the problem of several countries. There is an attempt on the part of the EEC to set up a united conservation board to try to solve the problem. The long suffering Dutch will then perhaps come into their own because all the pollution comes right down to them and they cannot discharge anything into the river because it is overpolluted already.

I hope the Minister will accept this legislation because if legislation is not passed in the lifetime of this Dáil it will have to come at a future date and then it will require a big budget. A comparatively small budget would settle it now. I recommend the Bill to the Minister with all the force at my command.

Mr. Carter

Deputy Esmonde has ranged fairly widely. He talked of Europe and the fact that the major rivers there are in danger. In the course of the discussion on this Bill I was glad to see that the Minister has shown an active interest in this matter and that a working group are studying the position at present. This group have the advantage of having material from a survey available to make the public aware of the danger of increasing pollution not only of water but of air. This interdepartmental working group will, I suggest, be in a position to give a lead not merely to this House but to local authorities who carry a great share of the responsibility for the prevention of pollution.

The pollution of water is a fact of life at present. It has many causes. It has been said here that material advance, the spread of industry, for example, modern methods of farming, factory farming, in particular, the use of nitrogenous fertilisers, and so on, have all contributed to this problem. If this Bill did no more than highlight and emphasise this problem of pollution, it would be worthwhile.

I note from the Minister's statement that the working party in relation to water pollution are studying the problem of the degree of pollution in receiving lakes. Pollution from effluent or sewage or from any other cause eventually finds its way to a drain leading to a river, leading to a lake. I am glad that the point is made as to whether or not it is advisable to temper the effluent, discover how much the receiving lake will bear and the best methods of treating effluent so as to reduce the risk of pollution.

Those of us who were brought up in the country know of the many fine lakes in our countryside which are polluted. This is a sad fact. Last year we read of a well-known fishing centre where fish life and marine life in general was destroyed and no one had even suspected that pollution would occur. There was no apparent reason for the pollution. Subsequently the causes were discovered. There was a combination of elements, not merely in relation to industry but also in relation to farming. Septic tank systems in an open countryside can lead to a certain degree of pollution. This is a problem which local authorities will have to deal with later.

There is laxity in relation to this whole matter and a lack of interest. This is shown by untidiness and the horrible spectacle of dumps. It has been suggested that mini-dumps may not be primarily responsible for water pollution. I suggest that mini-dumps can represent a high risk of pollution and that it is very difficult to preserve water in or near mini-dumps. A start should be made to deal with the highly objectionable practice of dumping thrash along country roads or in culs-de-sac. What would one think of a neighbour who would deliberately sweep out his house and outbuildings and leave the rubbish at his neighbour's door? This is, in effect, what happens when persons carry rubbish in cars and vans and surreptitiously dump it in mini-dumps. Local authorities should take a more direct interest in this matter and see that those who dump rubbish are forced to use the official dump.

There are many forms of pollution. The motor-car may be said to be a source of pollution. The factory with a high smoke content may be an agent of air pollution. The lorry and the tractor are involved in air pollution. In reference to the preservation of water we must also consider preservation of vegetation and we must also have in mind the need to preserve the appearance of the countryside.

At this stage of our development of industry and intensification of farming methods and the provision of services it would be too bad if there were not an active unit in each Department concerned that would be directly interested in anti-pollution methods.

Debate adjourned.