asked the Minister for the Environment if he intends to amend existing legislation to allow for major increases in penalties for pollution; and if provision will be made whereby offending parties on conviction will be liable to pay full compensation for damage and for the restocking of rivers where there has been a fish-kill.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Water Pollution Penalties.
38.
The Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977, lays down maximum penalties for contraventions of the Act both in the case of summary conviction, which applies to cases taken to the District Court, and for conviction on indictment in the case of offences of a more serious nature taken to higher courts. In the latter case the maximum penalty provided for in the Act is £5,000 plus £500 per day for a continuing offence or two years imprisonment or both. Legislation to increase these maximum penalties is not at present intended.
Section 10 of the Act also empowers a local authority, the Minister for Fisheries or a board of conservators to apply for a District Court order directing a person appearing to be responsible for a contravention of section 3 by causing or permitting any polluting matter to enter waters, or section 4 by discharging trade or sewage effluent to waters other than in accordance with a licence, to mitigate or remedy the effects of the contravention in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the court order. This could extend to making good any damage caused, including replacement of fish stocks.
Is the Minister aware that the situation has deteriorated rather than improved since the Water Pollution Act was passed, that there have been at least four major fish-kills in rivers in the south of the country in the past week, and what does he intend to do to improve the situation?
Is the Deputy referring to all rivers or tributaries?
I have referred to four distinct rivers.
First of all, local authorities are responsible for implementing the Act.
(Cavan-Monaghan): They have not got enough money to implement anything, not even to buy a shovel.
That is nonsense. Of course nobody could anticipate this particular incident because of the way it happened—how could any local authority monitoring have prevented such an irresponsible offence being committed? Local authorities are under constant pressure for better implementation of the Water Pollution Act and I am at present exercising further pressure to try to prevail on them to implement the Act more effectively than it has been. One of the principal reasons why the Act has not been implemented properly is because there was a go-slow, as local authority members know, because of a pay claim and a working party dispute and so on. One of the matters which the engineers refused to operate in most counties was the Water Pollution Act. That worked to the detriment of the administration of the Act, but that has been resolved and the Act is being implemented. I expect it to be implemented more effectively. Of course it would be nearly impossible to prevent the type of spillage that occurred.
Can the Minister tell the House how many councils have employed water pollution engineers?
I would certainly give the Deputy the information but I do not have it.
But that is the answer to the question, they have not the money to employ those engineers. The Minister is only spoofing.
That also is not right and nonsensical. They have the money and the engineering staff. I gave the reason it was not being implemented because——
Would the Minister name the councils that have fulltime engineers.
——that particular function was singled out in the go-slow for the best part of 12 months.
Can the Minister give us details of one case where compensation was paid, where the offending party had to restock a river where there had been a fish kill?
I do not have that information.
There has not been one, that is why.