Like other Deputies on this side of the House, I feel that if Deputy Dukes is not prepared to be specific and put up, then he should do the other. The sort of exchanges that take place here do not matter greatly but I — and the majority of Members — are delighted to have Deputy Currie in the House.
Earlier this morning I welcomed the legislation and I suggested that the proposals in the Bill allowing for the Government commitment to historically high levels of investment as outlined in the National Development Plan, 1989-1993 marked a very important step forward in the protection of our environment. I also made the point that while legislation such as this was welcome — as well as the Government's investment proposals — the real guardians of our environment are the people themselves. I suggested to the Minister and the Minister of State that they might consider the idea of a continuous education programme urging the public to mobilise as watchdogs of environmental standards.
Before we broke for Question Time I was on the point of suggesting that the increase in the powers of local authorities with regard to trade effluent is a noteworthy provision in the Bill. I also said that the provisions in sections 5 to 13 were particularly welcome because they allow local authorities to undertake on the spot reviews rather than depending on the present three year review system which requires the local authorities to review at specific points and, therefore, allow polluters to ease up on their standards in the first two years.
I also suggested that the Bill's provisions in relation to the fisheries boards are very welcome. For a long time the boards operated under something of a shadow. The Bill recognises the major contribution made by the fisheries boards over the years and to their control of water pollution, especially in the area of fisheries protection. The boards had a constant anxiety that the Water Pollution Act, 1977, would take away the legislative control they had at their disposal under the fisheries consolidation Act. This would have been a major tragedy in the areas of fisheries protection and in the prevention of pollution generally. For that reason I specifically welcome the fact that in this legislation not only will sections 17 (1) and 17 (2) of the fisheries consolidation Act be reaffirmed, but that they will be substantially extended in the matter of a penalty. The increase in fines is welcome but the extension of the law which will allow the board not only to take steps against a polluter and to impose a fine, but will allow the board to redress the damage done by pollution and restore costs to the board is particularly welcome.
In the past the situation was ludicrous in that the boards could certainly take action in the courts against the polluter, especially in relation to a habitual polluter, and could impose fines but the fines — particularly in the context of major industries — were regarded as a minor irritant. An example of the kind of offence which arose in the past and which, I hope, will be addressed by the Bill was the disgraceful case of continuous pollution of the Feale, one of the finest salmon rivers in Europe. The polluter was a major and wealthy enterprise and simply paid the fines as they arose. They represented a minuscule imposition on the company's resources and they simply returned to their bad ways.
The Bill will provide that this can no longer be the case. It will not be possible for polluters simply to pay fines, dismiss all the complaints and walk away from the problem. The polluters will now have to pay the long-term costs of their activities. In the case of a company such as the one which destroyed the River Feale in Kerry they will have to pay the cost of restocking the river and the other associated costs which had been borne previously by the fisheries boards. This is very welcome because the fisheries boards have not been adequately financed in the past. The powers of the board in this area are a very positive aspect of the Bill.
Another aspect of the Bill, in the context of fisheries protection, is important. Because the Bill will allow private individuals and groups who have a genuine interest to take action where a polluter is destroying an angling river, angling clubs will also be empowered to do something more than simply standing on the bank and wringing their hands in frustration when the river in which they have invested a great deal of resources has been destroyed.
The Dargle River, Bray, is a fabulous one and many people have put an awful lot of effort into it. Pollution is not the problem there, it is simply law breaking and poaching. It is sad to see the destruction that goes on but, at least in the context of polluting a river, the Bill, when enacted, will provide a club, in addition to the fisheries boards, with powers to deal with the problem, which is very welcome.
As I said at the outset, I commend not only the Minister and the Minister of State for introducing the Bill but particularly the former Minister, Deputy Daly, for his efforts in regard to the legislation. I will conclude soon because I know many other Members are champing at the bit to make their own contributions.
There is a final positive aspect to this Bill with regard to fisheries protection and the role of the fisheries boards. I think it was Juvenal, the Roman poet, who asked the question: who guards the guardian? I welcome the expanded role of the fisheries board under this Bill so far as pollution by local authorities is concerned. There is no point denying that it does occur from time to time and, when it does, it is important that somebody be there to monitor it and to challenge any guilty local authority. The provisions of this Bill, in so far as they extend or enhance the powers of fisheries boards are welcome.
Overall this is a very welcome Bill. I hope it will have a speedy passage and that we will see its provisions implemented very soon because they have much to recommend them.