Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Mar 1977

Vol. 297 No. 6

Local Government (Water Pollution) Bill, 1976 [Seanad]: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.

Question again proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."

There are a few questions I would like to ask the Minister. We have been discussing the responsibilities of local authorities and of sanitary authorities. Section 14 (1) puts an onus on the person responsible for an accidental spillage, discharge or deposit of any polluting matter which enters or is likely to enter waters or a sewer to make this information available to the local authority as quickly as possible. What is the position in relation to the local authority themselves or to the sanitary authority in their respective areas?

Does the Deputy mean the local authoriy should notify themselves?

No, but the local authority might notify the sanitary authority where the sanitary authority are the authority, or vice versa. Is there any onus on one to notify the other?

The Deputy knows that the local authority and the sanitary authority, even though they have divided responsibilities—some under the health board and some under the local authorities—work together and there is no necessity to have this matter dealth with in the way the Deputy suggests. I believe there is adequate provision.

The Minister will appreciate from the discussions this morning on the other sections that what I am mainly concerned with here is that the local or the sanitary authority, as being the authority responsible for the control of this work under the Bill, should have the same conditions applying to them as they would apply to others. In other words, they can issue a licence to an industrialist, for example, and attach stringent conditions to that licence but they themselves will not necessarily comply with the same standards. In this section the local authority can prosecute a person who does not notify the local authority or the sanitary authority in relation to an accidental discharge. Again I emphasise the point I have been making all the time, that the local authorities should, in so far as is possible, be bound by the same conditions as the people who will be responsible to them.

I am afraid Deputy Faulkner has not quite grasped it. The sanitary authority referred to here would be, for instance, an urban district council. They would not be a local authority for the purpose of this Bill. The county council would be the local authority and the sanitary authority would be the urban district council. If a spillage occurred and the sanitary authority were responsible, naturally they would have to notify the local authority. That is laid down in the Bill. I think Deputy Faulkner was thinking, as I was earlier, that we were talking about the officials of the health boards or something like that. There would be the same manager anyway and in many cases the same engineer under either authority.

Yes, but I think the Minister would agree that it might be better to say that he did not clearly understand it either.

I said that.

I am concerned to ensure that the local authority will have to live up to the same standards as they would impose on others.

I have great faith in the local authorities. It is a pity that Deputy Faulkner has not the same.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 11, subsection (1), line 38, to delete "may and, if so directed by the Minister,".

If the amendment is agreed section 15 (1) will read: "A local authority shall make a water quality management plan for any waters situated in its functional area or which adjoin that area". This amendment is very important. What we propose is basic to the good or proper operation of the Act when it comes into being. If local authorities are left to their own devices and especially if sufficient money is not immediately available, then the water quality management plan can and will be put on the long finger and the whole purpose of the Bill could be defeated to quite an extent.

Section 15 (2) states:

A plan under this section shall contain such objectives for the prevention and abatement of pollution of the waters the subject of the plan and such other provisions as appear to the local authority to be necessary.

There should be no deferment of the preparation of this plan because surely it will not be possible to tackle a problem of this magnitude unless we know what our objectives are. There may not be all that great difficulty in seeing what measures are necessary to control the pollution problems which face any local authority at a given moment, but that is quite a different matter from having a plan laid out which will enable the authority not only to overcome the water pollution problems which face them but also to plan ahead so as to remove the immediate problems and to ensure that the work being done by the local authorities in this field will have a lasting effect. In any aspect of life it is of vital importance that we should have a very clear indication as to where we are going in a matter such as this if we are to succeed in overcoming the problems which are there.

The local authorities will know the specific water pollution problems in their own areas which must be tackled as quickly as possible. To some extent that could be done on a piecemeal basis. The basic objective of the Bill is not only to overcome the problems which face us at the moment, but also to ensure that we will be able to get into a controlling situation, as it were, of this very grave problem and be able to keep it under control.

For those reasons there should be no delay in drawing up a plan of this kind. It is vitally important that the local authority should know the problems which exist within their boundaries and that a plan should be drawn up to deal with them and the priorities decided on. I strongly urge the Minister to accept this amendment. Quite frankly, I cannot understand why we should have the word "may" first and then the words "if so directed by the Minister". Once this Bill is passed, surely it becomes incumbent on local authorities to prepare a plan for the control and abatement of the pollution problems in their areas. I strongly recommend that this proposal put down by Deputy O'Leary and myself should be adopted.

Possibly Deputy Faulkner may have missed the intention of the section, because the quotation he gave was not complete. He left out an important word. Section 15 (1) provides: "A local authority may and, if so directed by the Minister, shall . . . " Deputy Faulkner left out the word "shall". I think he will admit there is a big difference between what he said and what is in the section. We propose in the Bill that a local authority may do so. It is expected that initially plans will be made only for the more important river catchments. If an important one is left out, the Minister may direct that a plan be made and the local authority shall do so if so directed. That is an entirely different matter from what Deputy Faulkner has been saying.

The intention behind section 15 is to enable local authorities to make water quality management plans commencing with the more important river catchments. I should explain that the making of a water quality management plan will involve rather complex and detailed investigations, including qualitative and quantitative assessments of water resources, the surveying of all discharges to and abstractions from waters in the catchment and defining all existing and potential water uses. There will also be need for detailed consultation with a wide variety of interests in relation to the setting of objectives in the plan for prevention and abatement of pollution in the waters concerned.

It can be seen therefore that this amendment, which proposes to place a statutory duty on all local authorities to prepare plans for all catchments immediately the section comes into operation, would impose an intolerable burden on some local authorities and there would be a distinct danger that it would tend to frustrate the purpose of the section.

I am satisfied that the reserve power in the section whereby the Minister may require local authorities to make plans for particular waters is quite adequate to deal with a situation where a local authority may be slow to exercise their power under this section in respect of an important catchment. Therefore I would ask that the amendment be withdrawn. It is not possible to do what is suggested and it would not help to have it there.

Even though I may not have read all the section, there is no question about whether I understood it. We suggest that "may and, if so directed by the Minister" should be deleted to ensure that it would be incumbent on the local authorities to provide a water quality management plan. The Minister says—and I have no doubt this is a fact—that a complex and detailed examination is necessary before such a plan can be provided. I cannot understand why there should be any delay because, while I would accept that a complex and detailed examination is necessary, nevertheless to me that would be all the more reason why we should insist that the local authorities begin at once to make this plan available.

Is it not obvious that if the local authorities are left to their own devices in relation to this matter and if this examination and investigation and all the other matters referred to by the Minister in his reply, are necessary, and that this will be costly to some extent, they will put it further on the long finger? Ultimately when it is discovered that they have been negligent —possibly some local authority may be negligent in the performance of their duties—and when the Minister, in accordance with the section as it is at the moment directs them to do it, they will then only be beginning on the work they should be beginning on immediately.

I am not convinced that we should not ensure that the local authorities would commence this work as soon as this Bill passes through the Houses. It refers not only to their own functional area but to adjoining areas. This means that, if the local authority decide to go ahead and carry out all the necessary discussions and investigations on the plan for their own functional area, and the next local authority do not, the whole situation is complicated in the sense that they will not be able to carry out the function laid down for them in this subsection which relates to the performance of their duties.

If we are to be really effective in putting the provisions of this Bill into operation, it is essential that the local authorities should get moving at once on their plans and co-operate with one another, as suggested in the subsection, so that they will not only know what their objectives are in relation to their own functional area but they will also know the objectives of the local authority in the next area and can correlate those objectives and come to a decision as to what should be done in respect of the adjoining areas. I do not see any reason why this should be delayed.

The Minister said what was likely to happen was that where a local authority did not carry out their function in relation to their own area, and if that persisted for some time, he could intervene and see to it that the authority did their duty in that respect. Because what is done in one local authority area has such an effect on the matters under discussion here in another local authority area, it would not be wise to allow any of them not to carry out their functions immediately.

Let us take, for example, the case where a river flows through one county and then through another county. If the local authority on the lower reaches define their objectives, prepare their plan, and so on, and the local authority on the upper reaches do not, whatever pollution is caused in the latter area is carried into the other and damages the work done by the authority who decided it was necessary to go ahead with their plans at once. I agree with what the Minister said about the amount of thought, planning, discussion, investigation, and so on, which is necessary. But I can see no reason why it should be put off.

What is basically important here is that the objectives must be known because people cannot work towards objectives unless they know what these are. If objectives are decided on in one local authority area—where a local authority has a responsibility in this Bill for areas along its borders—then it is very difficult for the other local authorities to define what their objectives are and certainly very difficult for them to carry out the function they are intended to carry out. I am not convinced by the Minister's arguments. First, we have a very important plan to be laid down which will contain the objectives of the local authority and why we should say they "may" do it or, if directed by the Minister "shall" do it, I cannot see. We should tell them in this Bill that they should do it, that it must be done, that we must have a programme for the country that is correlated and linked so that we can make a worth-while effort at controlling and containing this problem.

I fully support the amendment, which I think is very important. The making of a water quality management plan is fundamental to the Bill. There is a great danger that some, perhaps a few local authorities or the odd one, may be very slow in taking the initiative in preparing management plans. They may have problems regarding technical staff and other things. It should be made clear at the outset to local authorities that they must immediately on the passing of the Bill get down to the fundamental task of preparing a water quality management plan. This will take some time to prepare. The sooner local authorities take the initiative to commence plans the better. It is a reserved function of the local authority to make a plan under section 15 and this in itself could mean that it will take some time from when the initial steps are taken until the plan is finally ratified by the elected members. It may have to be sent back for revision a number of times by the elected members. There should be no doubt in the minds of members and officials of local authorities but that they must get down to the preparation of this plan immediately on the passing of this Bill. The best way to ensure that is to accept this amendement and make it mandatory on local authorities to make the water quality management plan immediately. That is fundamental to the section.

I am sorry I cannot agree. Although objectives will be laid down at national level, the plans will be made at local level, and I think nobody would suggest it is possible to start off every local authority making plans for each catchment in its area simultaneously. Deputies opposite must know this as well as I do. Much of the necessary work will be done— indeed, the ground work is in progress at present—but there are not so many people who can give technical advice available for the technical work. To suggest that all local bodies at one time could continue to prepare their plans and use the limited number of technical people available is just not reasonable.

The section is phrased in such a way that the local authorities will make plans for their larger catchment areas and put the important ones first. If I find that they are leaving out some areas that should be included I shall instruct them to bring these in. Eventually I hope they will get around to all of them. In regard to altering or amending, local authorities can change plans from time to time but basically the situation is that each local authority will be expected to bring in a plan for the larger or more important areas first. This is the only way it can be done. There is no other way in which it can be done at present and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Would the Minister not agree that it is impossible that each local authority would provide for the most important aspects of the pollution problem in their own areas in regard to making a plan of this kind? What is done in one area in this respect—and possibly in relation to water more than anything else— has an effect on other areas. I do not believe that local authorities could suddenly start a flurry to get all the expertise necessary together immediately but surely there must be some sort of association between the various local authorities if we are to have a proper plan to deal with the problem as a whole. It is impossible to deal with the pollution problem in a truncated manner. I have already explained that what happens in one county will affect another, especially if there is a river flowing through both of them, which is fairly common.

There must be an overall plan. There must be a setting up of objectives before any work is done. In subsection (2) it is pointed out that the plan under this section shall contain such objectives for the prevention and abatement of pollution of the waters the subject of the plan and such other provisions as appear to the local authority to be necessary. To me this means that, unless we have a plan, even the objectives are not clear. I believe it is not even possible for an individual local authority to decide absolutely on its own objectives; it must do this also in co-operation with neighbouring local authorities and, to a small extent possibly in an overall pattern. I cannot understand why the Minister will not accept this amendment because all we are saying is that the local authority "shall" do this. To say that they "may" do it means that they may if they so wish. It does not specify here that they must even deal with the larger and more important aspects of the work, as the Minister has said. It does not specify that. It simply says that they "may" or, if they are instructed by the Minister, they "shall". It will take quite considerable time before they are likely to be instructed by the Minister. They may be tardy—and this may happen in certain circumstances where a local authority is in financial difficulties—and they may decide that this will not be one of their priorities, that they can push it aside and say that they have more important matters to deal with. In that way they, as a local authoriy, can frustrate the efforts being made by their neighbours. This is a very important amendment to a very important section of the Bill, a section which I believe will ultimately decide whether or not we shall have any sort of reasonably quick progress in regard to this problem.

In those circumstances I feel strongly that we should in some way get around this point so that we will ensure that at least a reasonable effort will be made by all local authorities. I am not suggesting that local authorities are irresponsible. What I am saying is that there are circumstances which may decide for a local authority that they do not propose to go ahead with it at that time. Therefore the effect will be felt by their neighbour and to some extent by the country as a whole.

I know the Minister is particularly anxious that this Bill should work well, and so am I. I believe this is a good Bill which will effect considerable progress in relation to the controlling of this very great pollution problem. Unless we ensure there will be some type of co-operation between the various local authorities in this matter and that there will be no way in which a local authority, who for one reason or another decide not to bother their heads, will be able to opt out, the progress we make in containing and controlling water pollution will be much slower. Therefore I recommend that the Minister accept this amendment.

We are going along, not a step but a half a step at a time. Obviously the Deputies opposite have not got as far as subsection (7). Subsection (6) says:

As soon as practicable after a plan under this section is made, revised or replaced, a copy of the plan as so made, revised or replaced shall be furnished by the local authority concerned to the Minister, to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, to local authorities whose functional areas adjoin . . .

Subsection (7) says:

The Minister may—

(a) require plans under this section by two or more local authorities to be co-ordinated in relation to matters and in a manner specified by him.

(b) require a local authority to revise a plan under this section in relation to matters and in a manner specified by him and at such intervals as he may direct, or to replace such a plan,

(c) direct two or more local authorities jointly to make, revise or replace a plan under this section,

and local authorities shall comply with any such requisition or direction.

Here we have the safeguards which the Deputies are talking about and they are in the section under discussion. The suggestion made that immediately the Bill is passed it should be mandatory on all local authorities to make provision for all the areas under their control is ridiculous.

Deputy Faulkner is aware, and Deputy O'Leary is far more aware, of the different catchment areas which may occur within a local authority area. Some of them are more important than others from a pollution point of view. This amendment suggests that all should get equal standing and all must by law have plans made immediately. We are saying that the local authorities should take the most important one first and then proceed to do the remainder. If they leave out an important one it is my job to see that it is included. They must of necessity consult where necessary the adjoining local authority or urban authority and prepare a revised plan. In those circumstances I cannot see why there is so much talk about including this amendment. It would not help and in my opinion it would actually hinder progress. There is no point discussing it further.

I cannot agree with the Minister. In his opening remarks he suggested that we probably had not seen subsection (7). Of course we have. In fact that subsection is another reason why I would be inclined to press my amendment. Subsection (7) says:

The Minister may—

(a) require plans under this section by two or more local authorities to be co-ordinated in relation to matters and in a manner specified by him,

That is quite good. But the problem I see in it is the one I have been discussing for some time here, that is, by the time the Minister decides it is necessary to intervene very valuable time will be lost. The point I was making from the beginning was that one local authority could start preparing their plan, presenting their objectives, deciding on their future in relation to the control and containment of water pollution while their neighbour might decide not to bother. It would be some time before this would be brought to the attention of the Minister. Not only that but if one local authority decided they were going to try to put the spirit of this Bill into operation, they would find that they could only deal with it in relation to their own functional area and that they could not deal with it in the adjoining areas as is laid down in section 15 (1).

If it were mandatory that they should begin the work on the plan— I cannot visualise them rushing around trying to get a plan ready within a very short time—each local authority would know that the adjoining local authority were doing their share and there could be the type of co-operation and co-ordination referred to in subsection (7) without any need for interference by the Minister. If we are to obtain what we hope from this Bill it is essential that this work should proceed.

I believe the management plan is basic to the operation of the Bill. In those circumstances, and taking note of subsection (7), I still believe it is very important that local authorities should not have discretion about when they begin to concern themselves with this work. They have the right to decide what type of operation they will mount. The Minister has already stated on a number of occasions—and I agree with him—that they would have to begin with the most important and larger elements which are creating the greatest pollution problems. That is understandable and in that area co-operation between local authorities is most important. In relation to the relatively minor problem relating to smaller rivers and lakes, they can very often be dealt with within the local authority's own area. The larger areas cannot be dealt with piecemeal. They must be dealt with in a way which will have an overall effect and will produce the best possible results.

There is another aspect of this to which I should like to refer, that is, the feeling some local authorities may have that, if they get in quickly, prepare a plan and submit it, they may get a share of additional capital allocation for sanitary services that may become available. Those local authorities would then fare far better than those who would not take the initiative soon after the passage of this Bill. There would therefore not be an even spread of money throughout the country.

The Minister may require two or more local authorities to co-ordinate their plans. It is quite obvious that what is likely to happen is that each local authority will prepare their plans, discuss them and after they have been approved in principle consultations will take place with the neighbouring authorities. It should be compulsory for each local authority to commence work immediately on the passage of this Bill, on the water quality management plan for their particular area. The Minister would then be in a far stronger position to direct them to co-ordinate their plans. I am sure he will agree that local authorities do not like to be directed by the Minister to do certain things in relation to the provision of plans. The Minister should therefore accept our amendment.

Just to annoy the local authorities?

It is the very opposite. Deputy O'Leary said that they do not like to be directed by the Minister. It is a different matter to be directed by law and by this House.

"The Minister shall."

No. The local authorities shall.

Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 have been discussed with amendment No. 11.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 11, lines 48 and 49, to delete "Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries" and substitute "Minister for Fisheries".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 12, line 4, to delete "Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries" and substitute "Minister for Fisheries".

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I would like to ask some questions. Subsection (4) states:

A plan under this section may relate to the sea to such extent as the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, may approve.

Is this the same thing we have been discussing all day, the dual responsibility?

Subsection (6) states:

As soon as practicable after a plan under this section is made, revised or replaced, a copy of the plan as so made, revised or replaced shall be furnished by the local authority concerned to the Minister, to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, to local authorities whose functional areas adjoin that of the authority making, revising or replacing the plan, to sanitary authorities and to boards of conservators in the functional area of that authority.

Will this plan be available to the public? Will they be able to see it?

It will be available to the public. There would be no point in having the plan if it was not available to the public.

Will the public have any function in relation to it? Will they be entitled to object?

Under subsection (10) the local authorities will make the plan available for inspection and under subsection (11) the public will have the right to make representations.

It will be some time before this section is implemented and availed of by the local authorities. It is obvious when it is not mandatory on them to prepare the water quality management plans that they will not hurry. They will not do this unless they are certain they will get the finance to implement the proposals and attain their objectives under the plans. The Minister stated that it is quite obvious that there is not sufficient technical staff in the country to cover all the local authorities at the same time. I believe there will be a rat race among certain local authorities to prepare plans in order to catch any additional capital allocation which may become available.

If that were so it would be a great incentive to get them to start very quickly. They will be able to start immediately if they want to.

Unfortunately those who will not take the initiative will lose out. The Minister will be able to hamstring the whole situation if he insists, as he is entitled to under the Bill, on a number of local authorities co-ordinating their plans. It is quite obvious that the final adoption of the water quality management plans can be stalled at any level.

Why should they be? Why should we go to the trouble of bringing a Bill before both Houses of the Oireachtas if there was an intention to stall them? It would be much better not to introduce it at all.

For financial reasons?

They will have sufficient money to get working on it if they want to. It is not an argument.

It is quite obvious that if a number of local authorities submit management plans, either individually or collectively with other local authorities, with the consent of the Minister, and if a large number of plans are sent in they will expect to get the necessary financial resources to implement them.

The Deputy is missing the point. He is talking about grants for local authorities for the purpose of bringing in new sewerage systems. The main purpose of the Bill is to deal with things as they are. It is to deal with water pollution.

The main purpose of the section is to enable local authorities to prepare management plans.

Deputy O'Leary obviously thinks it applies only to their own sewerage systems. It applies to everything.

I agree that it applies to everything. I also believe that those plans cannot be finalised because it will require a good deal of consultation and referring back even by the local authorities. I agree that this should be a reserve function. The preparation and final agreement on any plan for water authority management of a county or district should be a reserve function.

I see in section 15 (4) the first mention in this Bill of sea waters and I am glad that this is included. We all know that there are certain swimming areas adjacent to piers and harbours which are heavily polluted. It is questionable whether there is a serious health hazard, although the expert advice is that such effluent flowing into tidal waters is not seriously injurious. It is of course most objectionable from the amenity point of view. I am sure that many local authorities will avail of this opportunity to make preliminary arrangements to deal with the pollution of swimming areas adjacent to piers and harbours.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 12, line 42, to delete "day" and substitute "date".

This is simply a drafting amendment to eliminate a slight inconsistency in terminology. The amendment will bring the wording of section 16 (1) into line with sections 4 (1) (a) and 5 (4) and 18 (4) in which the word "date" is used.

What is the norm?

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 30 not moved.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 13, lines 48 and 49, to delete "Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries" and substitute "Minister for Fisheries".

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 16, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

I have the same argument as I had in relation to a number of other sections. We have a situation here where the sanitary authority has the power to make decisions and to issue instructions which must be obeyed but at the same time the sanitary authority itself is not bound by the same conditions. The Minister did say in relation to a previous amendment, which was similar to this one but which related to the local authority rather than the sanitary board, that he would endeavour to ensure that all speed would be used in furthering the work or business here. In those circumstances we can accept that. I have been a bit perturbed all the time about the manner in which the authority in charge will not necessarily have to conform to the same stringent conditions as the people to whom they will be issuing directives.

Where would the sanitary authority be involved in this at all? It is not concerned with discharging out of a sewer into water; it concerns discharges into a sewer.

The sanitary authority are mentioned here.

Yes. The sanitary authority can refuse a licence in order to prevent a firm from putting effluent into a sewer but they would not be asking somebody to do something which they would not do themselves.

Section 16 (7) states:

A person shall not permit or cause the entry of any polluting matter, including sewage, to any drain or sewer provided solely for the reception or disposal of storm water.

Would there be a regular check on such drains or sewers?

Yes, there would be checks, but I should not like to lay down how often such checks should take place. Naturally all sanitary authorities carry out such checks at present.

This was the point I wanted to make earlier. Section 16 (1) states:

A person other than a sanitary authority shall not, after such day as may be fixed for the purpose of this section by order made by the Minister, discharge or cause or permit the discharge of any trade effluent or other matter (other than domestic sewage or storm water) to a sewer, except under and in accordance with a licence under this section granted by the sanitary authority in which the sewer is vested or by which it is controlled.

It would appear to me that, while the sanitary authority can refuse to permit any person except under licence to discharge trade effluent and so on into the sewer, the sanitary authority themselves are exempt. Could I assume that the sanitary authority are entitled to discharge or cause or permit the discharge of any trade effluent or other matter to the sewer?

How would the Deputy think that might arise? He is not suggesting that the sanitary authority would substitute the flood water sewer or pipe for an ordinary sewer?

It is a possibility. It may be remote but it is there.

I think it is very remote.

There appears to be a contradiction between section 16 (11) and section 16 (12).

Subsections (11) and (12)?

Yes. Subsection (11) reads:

It shall be a good defence to a prosecution for an offence under any enactment other than this Act that the act constituting the alleged offence is authorised by a licence under this section.

Subsection (12) reads:

A person shall not be entitled solely by reason of a licence under this section to make, cause or permit a discharge to a sewer.

But there is nothing contradictory in that. If a person has a right to discharge into a sewer and, in addition, requires a licence under this Bill, and gets that licence, that will prevent him being prosecuted but it will not of itself give him the right to discharge into the sewer. He would need to have permission earlier from whatever other source permission was required. If he has a right and it is something which would be prohibited by this Bill, then if he gets permission he will be covered.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."

Section 18 (2) provides:

In a prosecution for an offence under section 16 it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown by the person charged, that the discharge concerned is not an existing discharge of trade effluent or other matter made in the circumstances specified in subsection (1).

What exactly does that mean?

Where a discharge is an existing discharge the only person who would have information is the person making the discharge and so the onus is on the person making the discharge to prove it is an existing discharge.

"Existing discharge" is explained in subsection (4)?

"Relevant date" means the date fixed by order under section 16 (1). I presume the Minister intends to make this order at a fairly early date.

This morning I was hoping to make it much earlier than I do now.

I would not become too gloomy too early.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 15, after line 54, to insert the following paragraph:

"(b) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this subsection, any licence issued to that person consequent on the application or appeal in relation to which the information was furnished shall stand revoked from the date of the conviction.".

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 19, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I do not propose to go into all the arguments again about the applicant defraying or contributing towards the cost of any investigation carried out by a sanitary authority. We had a long discussion on that earlier in regard to local authorities.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."

Did the Minister tell me earlier that, in relation to an appeal to him, there would be a specific time limit laid down by regulation?

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 21.

Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 in the names of Deputy O'Leary and Deputy Faulkner are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 16, subsection (1), line 20, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".

If this amendment is accepted the subsection will then read: "The Minister shall by order provide that all appeals under sections 8 and 20 (or such classes of such appeals as he specifies in the order) shall, in lieu of being brought to the Minister, be brought to An Bord Pleanála." I do not know whether we should have had that amendment on the previous section but the fact is we spent a considerable time here debating the Planning and Development Bill and one of the most important provisions in that Bill was the provision to take planning appeals out of the hands of the Minister, except in certain rare cases, and place them under the control of Bord Pleanála. There appears to be no good reason why appeals under this Bill should not also go before An Bord Pleanála. In those circumstances we decided to table an amendment asking that the word "may" be changed to "shall". It would appear to me to be a retrograde step to go back in this particular Bill and have appeals going to the Minister rather than to An Bord Pleanála. The board will probably have their hands full for a short period and they will face a pretty heavy workload, but I believe the extra burden thrown on them by this particular Bill would not be all that onerous. It would be more appropriate to have appeals under this Bill heard by An Bord Pleanála and I suggest the Minister should accept the amendment.

I hope these amendments have been put down to elicit information rather than to press for their adoption. Making it mandatory on the Minister to make an order would not necessarily have any great effect without further changes in subsection (1). I am quite willing however to state what our intentions are and to explain why section 21 is drafted in its present form.

It has always been the intention that these appeals should be transferred to An Bord Pleanála as soon as practicable. Provision could not be made for this until the 1976 Planning Bill had been enacted. As soon as that happened I introduced the amendment on Committee Stage in the Seanad which incorporated the present section 21 into the Bill. I hope that this will suffice to indicate that we see advantages in having the board handle these appeals and that we intend to avail of the power to transfer them.

There are some difficulties. First appeals under section section 8 and 20 are likely to raise very technical issues which could have implications for the board, particularly in regard to staffing. Second, the Bill itself has implications, particularly in regard to staffing and facilities which will have to be worked out before decisions can be made regarding dates on which particular provisions can be brought into operation. Third, it is desirable that there should be discussions with the board as to the timing of transfers.

We have yet to see how An Bord Pleanála will operate. I think it only reasonable that they be allowed some time to settle into their task of dealing with planning appeals and their other responsibilities under the Planning Acts before we begin to impose additional work on them. That is why section 21 is drafted in a manner which will allow some flexibility.

I could envisage a situation where the board might take over appeals under section 8 but appeals under section 20 might have to remain with the Minister for the time being. The latter would be appeals relating to discharges to sewers and there might be some logic in these remaining with the Minister. It might be helpful to test that by experience. As of now, however, the intention is that appeals under both sections will be transferred to the board when they are in a position to take on this work.

Once appeals have been transferred to the board I find it very difficult to envisage any circumstances in which subsection (4) would be used to transfer them back to the Minister. The power to revoke or amend an order may however be very necessary in relation to the incidental or consequential provisions. We are setting up a new system which has yet to be tested by experience, and control of water pollution is too important to take any chances about loopholes which might arise through oversight or omission. In the light of this explanation I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn. For Deputy Faulkner's information I should like to add that the board will start working on planning appeals on 15th March, for which I am truly thankful.

The Minister has stated that his feeling is that he would transfer as much as possible as soon as possible to the board.

I appreciate that the board will have their hands full for some time to come but because of the principles involved we thought it was worth putting down this amendment.

I want to thank the Deputy for the opportunity of explaining this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 36 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."

I should like the Minister to give us a further explanation of subsection (3). It appears that some of the matters mentioned in that subsection could have far-reaching consequences and perhaps they would be better dealt with by legislation rather than by order.

Subsection (3) provides that an order may include incidentals, supplementary, consequential and transitional provisions including the making of any modification of any provision of this Bill and application or modification of any provision under the Planning Acts required to give full effect to the order. Under subsection (5) any order made under this section must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. We will get an opportunity of looking at them when orders are made.

Would that mean that where the Minister decided to pass over some responsibility to the planning board in relation to this that we will know of that through an order or does this refer to individual cases?

It would have to come before the House.

Question put and agreed o.
SECTION 22.

I move amendment No. 37.

In page 16, line 46, to delete ", sampling, measurement or analysis".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 17, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) A sample taken by a local authority or a sanitary authority shall be analysed by a central authority designated by the Minister.".

We feel that the analysing standards should be uniform and of a high level. If the responsibility for analysis is left to each local authority that would result in considerable duplication because each of them might set up their own infrastructure to deal with them. It would mean that we might not have the same standard of purity of water throughout the country. If the work was centralised in a highly efficient unit it would be possible for us to finance it so that it could do the necessary work for the various local authorities and sanitary authorities quickly and efficiently. If centres were set up all over the country not only would there be duplication but it would be a costly matter. In the interests of the objectives of the Bill the central authority designated by the Minister would be the best body to analyse water samples.

A provision on these lines is unnecessary. Section 28 (5) of the Bill enables the Minister to make regulations governing the taking of samples by authorised persons for the purpose of performance of functions under the Bill, including functions under section 22 relating to monitoring. Such regulations may provide for analysis of samples and may also prescribe the classes of persons to be responsible for the taking of samples and the carrying out of analysis, the certificate or other evidence to be given of the result of any analysis and the persons by and to whom such certificate or evidence is to be given. This power should be adequate if it becomes necessary to prescribe arrangements for analysis of samples.

Furthermore I should point out that many aspects of implementation of the Bill's provisions, including the question of arrangements for analysis of samples, need to be considered in detail before decisions are taken on final arrangements. A discussion document dealing with the main activities which will be generated by the Bill, including the need for laboratory facilities, has been issued to local authorities by my Department as a basis for discussion with them and other bodies concerned. Copies of this document have been made available in the Oireachtas Library. This document suggests that consideration be given to the provision of local and area laboratories in addition to a central co-ordinating centre and it would be unwise at this stage to write a provision into the Bill requiring that all samples taken by local and sanitary authorities be analysed by a central authority, as proposed in this amendment. I think there will be regional arrangements to deal with analysing samples and I believe that will be satisfactory.

We would be satisfied with regional authorities.

I am concerned about the cost and efficiency involved in analysing these samples. If this is done on a county basis it would not be efficient and would be very costly. I agree with having them done on a regional basis.

At present most of the analysing is carried out by local authorities locally. A regional arrangement would be the best and it appears that will be the position.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 22, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

In the Bill extensive and wide powers are given to national and local authorities, the Department of Local Government, the Department of Fisheries, boards of conservators and local and sanitary authorities to inspect, sample and monitor water supplies. There is a possibility of four separate authorities monitoring the same trade effluent in addition to the firm itself. There is no provision in the Bill requiring monitoring authorities to consult and co-ordinate their work.

The Minister should bear this in mind so that there will be information in relation to monitoring of particular areas available to each of the groups entitled to do this work and avoid duplication.

At present there is a good deal of co-ordination between them and section 24 gives me permission to make a regulation which will ensure that what the Deputy is talking about will be done.

While I was examining this Bill I got quite an amount of assistance from the reports of An Foras Forbartha who have done excellent work in this field. They issue quite a number of study reports. However, An Foras Forbartha have not been given any function. With their broad experience and the excellent work they have done on the various rivers and lakes throughout the country, would the Minister not consider them an appropriate body to become involved in this work? Local authorities may not have the resources to do this work on their own, particularly in regard to the monitoring necessary in this section.

We all recognise the excellent work An Foras Forbartha have done. They have been most co-operative. One of their members is on this board. They are a very busy organisation and to have picked them out as the only body to be responsible for certain things might add to their already heavy burden.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 17, lines 26 and 27, to delete "Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries" and substitute "Minister for Fisheries".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 17, line 28, to delete "and" and after "interested" to insert "and the Water Pollution Advisory Council".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to. Section 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Amendment No. 41 not moved.

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 18, lines 31 and 32, to delete "Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries" and substitute "Minister for Fisheries".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 43 to 45, inclusive, not moved.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 27.
Question proposed: "That section 27 stand part of the Bill."

The section states that the Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for Transport and Power, and so forth, make regulations to enable local authorities to do certain things. Which waters are described as "other than tidal waters"?

In view of the growing use of rivers and lakes for pleasure boating it is considered desirable that the Minister should have power to make regulations, following consultation with the Minister for Transport and Power and the Commissioners of Public Works, to enable county and county borough councils to exercise control over the use of certain types of boats which discharge their wastes directly into the water. The types of vessels which it is envisaged will be covered by the regulations are small vessels, such as pleasure craft, which may cause pollution problems by discharging sewage to waters in confined areas such as marinas. The main problems from such craft arise at marinas in inland waters and the regulations will not extend to their use in tidal waters, that is, up to high water mark. Sea-going vessels will not come within this control.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Amendment No. 46 not moved.

I move amendment No. 47.

In page 19, line 15, to delete "Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries" and substitute "Minister for Fisheries".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 20, line 29, to delete "Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries" and substitute "Minister for Fisheries".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 20, lines 33 and 34, to delete "Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries" and substitute "Minister for Fisheries".

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 28, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

There is a reference to "an authorised person". How will the person be recognised as an authorised person?

At the moment there are many instances in which entry has to be effected and the usual procedure is that the person carries a warrant. Entry, of course, may be refused to a person who cannot produce the warrant.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 29.
Question proposed: "That section 29 stand part of the Bill."

The section states:

A local authority may contribute to the funds of a person engaged in or proposing to engage in research, surveys or investigations in relation to water pollution, but any such contribution shall not exceed any limit or contravene any condition which may from time to time be prescribed.

Would it not have been better to have stated that the local authority may contribute subject to the sanction of the Minister?

It amounts to the same thing. This is the normal way of stating it. It is a method of ensuring that no local authority will give an outrageous sum to anyone.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.
Question proposed: "That section 31 stand part of the Bill."

What is the significance of this provision which enables an authority to prosecute whether the offence occurred in the authority's functional area or elsewhere?

Drogheda Corporation may prosecute Meath County Council and vice versa.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 32.
Question proposed: "That section 32 stand part of the Bill."

Section 32 (1) (b) states:

by leaving it at the address at which he ordinarily resides.

Is this the normal procedure?

Yes. This has been the practice in previous legislation and we had it in the Planning Act.

In section 32 (2) who is the person responsible? Is it the occupier or the owner?

The occupier will be responsible. For instance, an industry may rent a premises but there is no point in serving notice on the owner of the premises. The person concerned will be the person using the premises, who is causing the pollution.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 33 and 34 agreed to.
SECTION 35.

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 21, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) The expenses under this Act of the council of the county of Dublin shall be charged on that county exclusive of the borough of Dun Laoghaire.".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 35, as amended, agreed to.
Section 36 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Agreed to take remaining Stage today.
Barr
Roinn