Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 1989

Vol. 394 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Environment Protection Agency Bill, 1989: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Quinn

Last evening I was urging the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment to seize the opportunity to jump the legislative queue that undoubtedly obtains in relation to the preparation and formulation of legislation and to take on board a Second Reading of this Bill to establish an environmental protection agency. My experience tells me that such a decision would not in any way compromise her views in relation to the priorities of such an agency while, at the same time, ensuring that in the course of our Presidency of the EC when, as the Taoiseach has said, it is hoped to make the environment a major issue of that Presidency, we would not then be faced with the ludicrously embarrassing position of not having the relevant legislation before the House.

With regard to the Taoiseach's priorities vis-á-vis Ireland's Presidency, and specifically in relation to the question of the environment, as far as the Labour Party are concerned we welcome this conversion manifest within Fianna Fáil and, perhaps to a lesser extent, among the Progressive Democrats.

In the Labour Party policy discussion document published on 5 June 1989 we stated that the Labour Party's priorities should be, and I quote:

Labour believes that the priorities of environmental policy for any socialist Party must have two aspects — domestic and international. A clean environment at home is of little benefit in a world that is choking to death. Similarly, there can be little point in our protesting about the threat from outside if we fail to keep our own house in order. Labour's priorities, therefore, are set out under these headings.

The Labour Party proposes that Ireland should adopt as a national policy, the support of a comprehensive set of responsible environment actions and commitments so as to establish Ireland as a place which is uniquely "green". Ireland is the least densely populated State within Europe and still remains substantially pollution free. While substantial dangers threaten our environment, these can be overcome with proper and effective management, combined with a national collective will.

The objective should be to create a comprehensive and complete commitment to the establishment of a "green" environment. The benefits to all sectors of our society would not only result in an improved environment at home but a transformed reputation abroad. Irish products — ranging from food and beverages to industrial products — would be recognised instantly as being environmentally sound, organically pure and intrinsically clean. In a world becoming increasingly concerned with problems of contamination and environmental pollution, the positive image of a green Ireland, in the real sense of the world, is an objective which must receive full support.

That objective, which in part appears to have been taken on board by the Taoiseach — in a rhetorical sense if nothing else — and, broadly speaking, would have the support of most progressive Members of this House, will be placed seriously at risk on account of the political footsteps that must be taken within the next couple of weeks, never mind within the next six months by the Minister of State. We cannot begin to appear credible vis-á-vis our present environmental record while we have, on the one hand, the abolition of An Foras Forbartha, with their attendant reputation and, on the other hand, promised legislation which clearly will not arrive in time to be enacted before the cessation of our term of Presidency in June next.

One must ask what kind of national disgrace is the Minister endeavouring to bring on the entire country — indeed all the intimations of grandeur are beginning to surface in the demeanour of the Taoiseach in relation to our forthcoming Presidency — if we are to have a green, environmental declaration promulgated from Dublin Castle, with all its attendant pomp and ceremony while, at the same time we are in breach of the EC Directives on Environmental Impact Assessment — belatedly being taken on board after approximately two years — in addition to not having an environmental protection agency of any kind, whatever its composition? The Minister of State would be well advised to consider jumping the political queue and take that proposal on board.

I do not agree with everything in the Fine Gael Bill. Indeed, the Fine Gael spokesperson does not expect everybody in this House to agree with all its contents, nor do the Fine Gael Party regard the Bill as being of unique quality and value so that not a single sentence or clause can or should be changed. That is not the point at issue at this stage of our legislative debate. The point is that we need some kind of environmental protection agency. It is my belief that we need something more interventionist than the agency proposed by the Fine Gael Party, one that would have a certain degree of "hands on" involvement rather than the excessive influence placed on its policing aspect indicated in the Fine Gael Bill. Whether they be the proposals of the Fine Gael Party or those set out in our policy discussion document, either would be better than what the Minister herself intimated last evening and at the substantial press conference at which details of the proposed agency were made available at a time when there were other environmental matters occupying the citizens of Dublin city.

We believe that what we need is an environmental management agency. It is not just a question of protecting the environment; it is a question of learning how to manage it as well.

Again I shall quote from our policy discussion document as follows:

Labour believes that it is absolutely essential for the future that the management of the environment be entrusted to an independent agency, with adequate resources and powers. The Environmental Management Agency we propose would be statutorily established. It would have a representative council with an independent secretariat and executive staff.

The Environmental Management Agency would be jointly representative of the State, producers, consumers and workers. Its Council, representing the social partners in the broadest sense of the word, would operate upon the basis of a framework of legislation and draw up codes of practice for all activities which interact and impact upon the environment.

The functions and responsibilities of that agency would be as follows:

Agriculture, manufacturing, and services would be represented on the Council and would participate in drawing up codes of practice which, when agreed upon, would assume the force of law.

They would in effect provide regulations and legal procedures for any breaches of the agreed codes of practice.

The Environmental Management Agency will have the following functions:

The development and implementation of a National Environmental Management Plan;

The development and implementation of policy and action in relation to specific hazards, including the ozone layer, the greenhouse effect, and other areas where we can make our own contribution;

The overall responsibility for ensuring the involvement of local authorities in protecting the environment;

Responsibility for research and information. The abolition of An Foras Forbartha and the emasculation of the Environmental Research Unit within the Department of the Environment was a scandal. Labour will re-establish An Foras Forbartha as an integral part of the Environmental Management Agency;

Responsibility for Radiological Protection. The Environmental Management Agency will take over the role of the present Nuclear Energy Board in so far as it relates to radiological protection;

Responsibility for functions presently carried out under the aegis of the Department of Health in the following areas — health inspection; food additives; other product chemical additives;

Responsibility for ensuring that all exploration companies will be required to provide all details of environmental information derived from exploration within our jurisdiction.

It is quite clear that, between Fine Gael, Labour and most other parties in this House, there is broad agreement on the need for the establishment of an environmental protection agency, its overall terms of remit, and its being clearly established as an independent body.

In addition, I fully support the concept of an Oireachtas environmental committee. The convention — and I have been a party to it myself and feel all the more culpable as a result — of not accepting legislative initiatives from the other side, irrespective of their merits or demerits, is prevailing and I am sad to note that. I would have hoped that in our maturity we might have got a little further down the road than that. Secondly and more ominous is the apparent limited confinement of the proposed role of the agency that is contemplated by the present Coalition Government. It will not go as far down the road as we would like. I do not think it is going to be delivered in time. I think that in June, when the Taoiseach is promoting and promulgating a declaration on the environment in Dublin Castle, the citizens outside the walls will still be without an effective operating agency. I predict that there will be no environment protection agency in operation with statutory undertakings and backing and a proper budget for 1990 when that council takes place and we will be made the laughing stock of Europe. The Minister, by accepting this Bill now, could avoid that embarrassment.

Acting Chairman

I understand that Deputy Roche wishes to share his time with Deputy Cullimore.

Mr. Roche

Yes, I would like to give eight or nine minutes to Deputy Cullimore if that is agreed.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Roche

A journalist from one of the daily newspapers contacted me recently and asked me about efficiency of Dáil Éireann and, more importantly, about how it can be made a more efficient place. I instanced a number of bad habits that we have in this House, for example, the abuse that goes on every day during the daily bun fight that we call the Order of Business and the particular example recently where 28 different requests for items on the Adjournment were put forward during the Order of Business — each of them nothing more and nothing less than cynical attempts to catch the selective eye of the local media. A second extravagant abuse of time which I pointed out is the abuse of Question Time and in particular the abuse of written questions. I pointed out that we also had the abuse in recent times of trivial votes being called, such as Fine Gael's effort to call a vote recently on the title of a Bill. Sadly, I believe that the Bill before us is another blatant abuse of time in the Dáil.

Mr. Shatter

The Deputy obviously wants to close down the Dáil altogether.

Mr. Roche

I will answer the Deputy in his own time.

Mr. Quinn

He should go back to eastern Europe.

Mr. Shatter

He does not want an Order of Business, Question Time, Votes or Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Roche

Deputy Shatter's clear intention in introducing this Bill is to jump on the band wagon. Fine Gael, stuck as ever for an original idea, have in this Bill latched onto a commitment in the Programme for Government 1989-1993. As the House and the whole nation know, the establishment of an environment protection agency is one of the commitments in that programme.

Mr. Shatter

Where is the Bill?

Mr. Roche

One could understand and even forgive Deputy Shatter's impatience if there were any signs that the Government are dragging their heels on the issue but that is simply not the case. Not only are the Minister and the Minister of State on the record as to their anxiety to bring forward legislation to establish the EPA but they have taken the unusual step of publishing a full brief as to what they intend the new agency to do and how they intend it to operate. It is evident that Deputy Quinn has not really read that material. If he had, he would not have made some of the comments he has just made.

The new agency, as proposed by the Government, will, first of all, control and regulate any environment-threatening development of a specific type; secondly, monitor the general environmental quality; thirdly, provide support, back-up and advisory services and, finally, carry out environmental research. Deputy Shatter's dismissal of the Government's proposals outlined to date seem, on the face of it, either to be based on the arrogance which has endeared him to so many people of all sides of the House or alternatively — I am being charitable to him — based on a flawed understanding of the Government's intentions.

The general framework which the Government intend following strikes me as one which should recommend itself to any serious legislator or environmentalist. Under the Government's proposals the Environment Protection Agency will have real teeth. I note that tonight Deputy Quinn adverted to the fact that the agency proposed in the Private Members' Bill lacks these. It is the Government's intention that the legislation will specifically identify classes of development on which attention will focus. The classes of development which are to receive attention will not be cast in stone but will from time to time be subject to amendment. Surely there is good sense in targeting areas which from time to time require particular attention. The task force type of operation which this denotes is a highly successful organisational format in business and one which can readily be translated into public policy and which from time to time in the past we have translated into public policy.

The Government proposals will provide for a new environment agency which will be responsible for the issue and review of waste and air pollution, and waste permits for new developments in scheduled areas. Outside the scheduled categories of development local authorities will continue to fulfil their planning role and will retain responsibility for licensing and monitoring non-scheduled developments. Again this strikes me as a reasonable approach. It lifts a burden from the shoulders of local authorities and dealt with an area which they clearly cannot handle without emasculating them. Monitoring of all emissions from plants operating within the schedule will be handled by the new EPA. Local authorities will retain responsibility for monitoring non-scheduled developments. Again this strikes me as a reasonable and rational approach which will focus attention on specific areas where we feel we have problems while allowing local authorities to continue monitoring areas where in general we do not have problems.

The agency proposed by the Government will be responsible for monitoring or licensing the movement of hazardous waste and will be given specific new powers to control noise arising from any scheduled categories of development. This I welcome in particular, having urged the Minister some time back in this House to pay special attention to the increasing problem of noise pollution, not least in here.

It seems that the general control and regulation powers which the Government intend giving to the EPA merits a welcome from all sides of this House rather than the back-handed dismissal which they received from Fine Gael. I should have thought also that the proposals for general monitoring of environmental quality which are contained in the Government's plans for the EPA would have been welcomed. I cannot understand their criticism of this. In particular the EPA will be charged with responsibility for devising comprehensive programmes of air and water quality monitoring. Having devised those programmes, they should be communicated to local authorities where monitoring should be ongoing in scheduled areas and the EPA should concentrate on these areas.

In the area of water quality I would see the Environment Protection Agency, as proposed by the Government, as fulfilling a role which complements and extends the very valuable work being done by local authorities and in particular by the fisheries boards which is all too often ignored. The fisheries boards themselves have been ignored. They have expressed the fear in the last two years that they have been overshadowed by legislation. I welcomed in the pollution Bill last week the fact that that is not the case and I would hope that in putting forward proposals for the Environment Protection Agency, from this or any other side, we would be conscious of the merits of the work done by the fisheries boards.

The Environment Protection Agency envisaged by the Government will also provide support and back-up services to other agencies, most notably to the local authorities and, as I have said, to the fisheries boards. It is obvious that you cannot have the full laboratory back-up in local authorities. This is an aspect which is dealt with in Deputy Shatter's Bill. It is a good idea and one which commends itself to us all. In addition, the Environment Protection Agency, as envisaged by the Government, will have a role in providing a general environmental advisory service which will be available not just to local authorities but to other bodies outside the public sector.

A particularly welcome aspect of the Government's proposals is the expansion of the back-up laboratory and advisory service, possibly through a network of regional labs and offices, to local authorities. If this type of back-up service is to have any real impact it must be set up on a regional basis and be accessible to all local authorities. The best way to ensure that this service is accessible to the local authorities is to decentralise it. I do not think many Members of this House would disagree with that suggestion.

The Government propose to concentrate all environmental research within the environmental protection agency, to give the new agency responsibility for co-ordinating such research by public and other bodies, including the universities, and to pinpoint the agency as the Irish contact point for the new European Environment Agency. I do not understand why anybody would find that proposal objectionable.

I have outlined the proposals which I do not think are objectionable, and I do not think any reasonable Member of this House would find them objectionable, but they have all been dismissed by Fine Gael. These are all eminently sensible propositions, in particular the proposition to establish a central co-ordinating body on research. I believe we all agree on this proposal. This is a summary of the few major points in the Government's plans for this agency. They certainly merit more consideration than they will evidently receive from the main Opposition parties. I am not sure yet what The Workers' Party views on the proposals are but I hope they will be more constructive than some of those we have heard so far.

A positive point in the Government's proposal for setting up an environmental protection agency relates to the board of the agency. This is a welcome and new departure and should not be dismissed as it has been. As the Government's press statement of 5 December outlined, and as the Minister of State made clear in her speech last night, a new form of full-time executive board for the Environment Protection Agency is under consideration by the Government. They would operate in tandem with an advisory council representing various environmental, professional and other interests. The Minister did not mention last night that local authority interests would be represented on a regional basis and I should like this aspect to be considered.

On the whole I consider that this is a very admirable mix. Clearly there is a limit to the amount of time any part-time board can give to their activities. Indeed, it constantly amazes me that we entrust the stewardship of hundreds and even thousands of millions of pounds of State investment in the part-time boards of State-sponsored bodies. It seems extraordinary to expect our State bodies to be governed and overseen in the first instance by part-time boards of directors. The new model outlined in the plans which have been released by the Minister and the Minister of State are worthy not just of commendation but of wider consideration as to how we structure the relationship between State bodies, this House and public administration generally.

In his contribution last night Deputy Quinn asked why the Government must always be the ones to originate legislation and he referred to this point again tonight. He asked why legislation brought forward by Members of the House other than the Government could not be looked on favourably. I agree with him in principle because after all this is the Legislature for the State and it is wise that from time to time laws should be produced by Members of the House other than the Government. However, before any legislation can be accepted by this House it must be good and well drafted. All too often in the past sloppily drafted legislation was brought forward which required amendment and collapsed on the first test of its constitutionality. Therefore, the first test of any legislation, whoever introduces it, is whether it is good and well drafted.

Deputy Shatter's Bill is not good and well drafted. Moreover, to get wide acceptance the approach advocated in any Bill introduced into the House must be worthy of widescale acceptance. While the general aims of Deputy Shatter's Bill are endorsed by all sides of the House — they are certainly endorsed by this side of the House given that the Government included a specific proposal for the setting up of an Environment Protection Agency in the Programme for National Recovery— the approach he has adopted is not commendable. Rejection of this Bill is not, therefore, based on a reaction to the Bill but on the Bill's imperfections. These are so numerous that the Bill is not capable of amendment and it lapses in totality.

The first point I find unacceptable is that the Bill is drafted by a person or party who are clearly out of sympathy with the whole concept of local government. The contributions made by Deputy Shatter on behalf of Fine Gael and by Deputy Harney on behalf of the Government on this point provide an interesting and intriguing contrast in styles. I would ask any party who have not yet committed themselves to this Bill to carefully review the styles of both contributions and to examine the attitudes of both the proposer of this Bill and the Government to local government. Many worthy points are made about local government in this House and elsewhere and many people make proclamations about their support for local government but what really counts is how we support local government when it comes to a question of law.

There is no doubt that Deputy shatter made a competent contribution but he was extraordinarily centralist. This should not surprise anybody who pauses to think of the recent anti-local government ethos which was evident in pronouncements from Fine Gael. It is odd that a spokesman on the environment should reflect so willingly on this anti-local government ethos. I want to remind Members of the House that as far back as 1986 Fine Gael suggested that we should radically reduce vocational education committees. In spite of the fact that VECs provide a local democratic input which is all too often missing elsewhere and that they have served this country well, Fine Gael proposed that they should be wiped away to meet a centralising whim of the then Minister for Education. The same approach is even more evident in the approach adopted by Deputy Yates to the health boards. We all know that the health boards are not perfect——

Mr. Shatter

Look at the fine mess the Government have made of the health service.

Mr. Roche

——but anybody who knows anything about health administration knows that the resolution of the problems in the public health services——

Mr. Shatter

The Deputy should not talk too loudly about Fianna Fail's contribution to the health services.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy should not interrupt Deputy Roche.

Mr. Roche

I do not expect good manners from the Deputy. As I said anybody who knows anything about the health services knows that the problems in the public health services will not be wiped away by replacing the health boards with a centralised bureaucratic State-sponsored body answerable to nobody and who have no democratic input. The type of State-sponsored body advocated by Yates is precisely what we do not need in the health services.

Mr. Shatter

On a point of order, I think it is traditional when a Deputy is referring to another Deputy that he refers to him as "Deputy Yates" and not as "Yates".

Mr. Roche

I think I said "Deputy Yates".

Mr. Shatter

Not in the latter part of your excitable contribution. The Deputy is running away with himself. The Deputy said "Yates", not "Deputy Yates".

Mr. Roche

I think I said Deputy Yates and I think everybody other than Deputy Shatter heard it, but there again the acoustics on that side of the House are notoriously bad.

The same approach is evident in this Bill which is based on an authoritarian and centralist style which is unacceptable. The balance between local authorities and the new central agency which the Minister of State sought to establish for the Government side in her contribution and which is evident in the plans published by the Government for their EPA are conspicuously missing from Deputy Shatter's contribution and, more importantly, from the Bill he put before us.

Another interesting institutional point which arises in Deputy Shatter's Bill is the suggestion in section 9 that the EPA and the commissioner shall be independent. I do not object to that proposal but I wonder what Deputy Shatter and Fine Gael mean by "independent". Since we established our first State-sponsored bodies in the twenties, independence has meant independence of this House in so far as the day to day operations of a State body are concerned. I wonder if Deputy Shatter and his party mean this. If one examines the recent records of this House it is obvious that they do not. At regular intervals in the recent past members of Deputy Shatter's party sought to ignore the concept of independence in the day to day operations of our State-sponsored bodies and to examine the details of those day to day operations in this House. Before Deputy Shatter or any other member of Fine Gael make proclamations of independence, they should be clear as to what precisely they mean by those proclamations. We frequently toss the word "independence" around in the House. When we incorporate it in an Act we should first make it clear what we mean by "independence" and we should then resolve to live by the decisions we have made.

Deputy Shatter means to create an agency independent of the Minister for the Environment and, therefore, independent in its day to day operations of ministerial responsibility. As a consequence it will be unfettered by the prospect of having its day to day operations reviewed in the House. If that is what he means he should say so. I suspect that the environment in general is such a pressing issue that Members would not willingly accept the creation of an agency which would put the day to day scrutiny of environmental matters or environmental protection outside the examination of the House. Would, for example, Deputy Garland, who has been absent for the entirety of the debate on the Bill, or Deputy Quinn accept a situation where they could not debate in the House a day to day aspect of the environmental protection agency's operation?

Mr. Shatter

The Deputy is getting lost in the realms of fiction.

Mr. Roche

I doubt very much that they would. If the Deputy refers to "independence" he should indicate what he means by that word. He has not done so. Section 9 is deficient in that.

Mr. Shatter

I did, in considerable detail. Will the Deputy tell the House if he is in favour of the committee or not?

Acting Chairman

Deputy Shatter will have an opportunity to respond at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr. Roche

If the House supports Deputy Shatter's proposition that is precisely what it will be doing. Deputy Shatter's proposition will have precisely that effect.

Mr. Shatter

Deputy Roche's contribution is so inaccurate it is difficult on occasion not to respond.

Mr. Roche

Other criticisms of Deputy Shatter's Bill were dismissed as nit-picking, but I wonder if they are. Careful balance between the Minister's responsibility for policy, the powers and role of the new agency and the continuing role of the local authorities, which are features of the Government's proposals, are conspicuously missing from the Fine Gael Bill. The Bill, in addition to failing to establish this balance, failed to give the environmental protection agency any direct function in regard to licensing or control of individual plants. That is what I mean by giving the agency teeth and that is what is proposed by the Government.

Mr. Shatter

I thought the Deputy did not want everything centralised.

Mr. Roche

The criticisms which have been put forward are not nit-picking. They are issues of such fundamental importance that they render the Bill before us incapable of being saved by amendment. The Minister of State is correct when she suggests that these imperfections are such that they strongly indicate that the drafter of the legislation has not fully thought through the proposals. Section 4 proposes the establishment of a joint committee on the environment and I think that is a good idea. In fact, it is such a good idea that I wonder why it did not occur to Fine Gael when they were in Government. However, the Bill goes on to mar that good idea by suggesting, among other things, that the joint committee should have responsibility for the staffing of the environmental protection agency. How could that work?

The fact is that the environment is an issue which is of such critical importance that it should transcend political boundaries. Certainly, it should not be turned into a political football. I regret that I have to deal with Deputy Shatter's proposals in such a negative way. Sadly, the negative aspects of his proposals far outweigh their positive points. I urge the Minister, and the Minister of State, to speed up the Government's proposals and to bring forward a Bill giving effect to the sensible suggestions made in their statement of 5 December. It is important, as Deputy Quinn said, that those proposals be on the Statute Book at an early date.

Mr. Cullimore

I welcome the support of Deputy Shatter, and other Opposition Members, for the setting up of the environmental protection agency. However, it is difficult to understand the need for the publication of the Bill given that the Minister has outlined already particulars of the proposed agency. The Government deserve great credit for the considerable efforts they have undertaken to raise public awareness about the affects of pollution. The proposed agency is an indication of the Government's commitment and dedication to the protection of the environment. All aspects of environmental pollution, air pollution, soil pollution and water pollution, are giving cause for great concern.

There is now a well developed public consciousness that pollutants will have to be controlled and, eventually, eliminated. This problem must be tackled by education and legislation and we must have a proper monitoring system to ensure that adopted guidelines are adhered to. The proposed agency — outlined by the Minister will have four main functions — control and regulation of development likely to pose a major risk to environmental quality; general monitoring of environmental quality; support and back-up advisory services and environmental research.

The proposed EC Directives will ensure that action is taken between neighbouring EC countries. We must be vigilant to see that Ireland's special conditions are reflected in EC guidelines. Our soil types and rainfall must be taken into consideration. For example, we apply a higher level of nitrogen and potassium, our moisture requirement is different from that of other Community regions and conditions in the Brussels area or the Paris basin differ from ours. A dynamic environmental agency with the necessary expertise will ensure that proper guidelines are laid down. It is because of the interaction between climate patterns and soil types that legislation guidelines must take account of our particular conditions. For example, we record a higher level of rainfall than other European countries. All those facts must be taken on board when the guidelines are being framed to comply with recent EC Directives.

The late and great soil scientist, Dr. Tom Walshe, once said that there are many other purposes in fields outside agriculture for which basic soil information is a prerequisite. That statement is of particular relevance today. We are fortunate to have, as a result of Dr. Walshe's perception and foresight, an ongoing research programme at the Teagasc Research Institute in Johnstown Castle in County Wexford. The centre offers a national survey programme, identifies and maps various soil types and provides a complete analytical service of major and minor elements that comprise the soil of Ireland.

I should like to call for close liaison between the Department of the Environment and the Johnstown Castle Research Centre in order to maximise the relevant expertise available. In that way the new environmental monitoring agency will be an efficient, scientific and cost-effective organisation. I should like to ask the Minister to consider locating the headquarters of that agency at Johnstown Castle.

Ireland's clean image abroad arises from a belief that our air, our soil and our waters are pollution free. Those natural elements form the essential components of our agri-food industry which is so vital to our economic performance. We must not leave anything undone to protect our envied status as a green and clean land. Our expanding tourist industry is also capitalising on our reputation as an environmentally friendly destination. To maintain that image we must have an environmental policy that incorporates a monitoring system that will be effective, efficient and will enjoy the support and confidence of the general public.

To date in developed and developing countries the safeguard of the environment has been entrusted to the population largely on a voluntary basis. With increasing industrialisation, urbanisation and intensification of agriculture it is obvious that statutory control will have to be imposed by a proper environmental protection agency. What is needed is a clear division of functions between the Department, the proposed agency and the local authorities. Deputy Shatter's Bill fails to do that. The Bill will lead to duplication and will give sweeping powers to an environment commissioner who could determine policy which should be the prerogative of the Minister of the day. The Bill does not provide a mechanism to ensure that uniform high standards are consistently provided throughout the country.

I should like to ask Deputy Shatter to await publication of the Government's Bill which will provide uniform application of standards. The power to control major developments will be specified in legislation and not left to the agency to determine. This Bill will create another layer of administration.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure the House will join with me in congratulating Deputy Cullimore on making his impressive maiden speech.

Mr. Gilmore

I propose to share my time with Deputy Kemmy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Gilmore

First, I would like to join with you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, in congratulating Deputy Cullimore on making his maiden speech.

On behalf of The Workers' Party I welcome the Bill introduced by Deputy Shatter. We are not entirely happy with some sections of the Bill and there are some omissions but these are problems which can be addressed on Committee Stage. I am pleased that Deputy Shatter has shown a willingness to consider such amendments, assuming of course that this Bill gets beyond Second Stage. The Workers' Party, therefore, will be supporting the proposal to give the Bill a Second Reading.

I am disappointed at the negative position adopted by the Government on this Bill, as expressed by the Minister of State when she spoke in this House yesterday. She said "the important thing is to get the agency established as quickly as possible". If this is so, why must we wait possibly for another 12 months and maybe longer before Government legislation is brought before this House to statutorily establish the agency? Why not accept the Bill before us as a starting point, build on it and amend it but not throw it out? Are we getting from the Minister of State, from the mould-breaking party, a classic example of old style adversarial politics? This Bill has been moved by the Opposition so it must automatically be rejected, even if this means rejecting the clear wish of the general public to have the agency established. I think the Minister of State will come to regret the position she has taken on this Bill.

There is now a consensus in the country, which is reflected in this House, that there should be an environment protection agency. In addressing this Bill a number of questions must be asked. Why do we need an environment protection agency? What should it do? How should it be structured and do its business? To answer these questions we first need to understand what the environment is and where and from what it needs to be protected.

Even though there has been a greatly increased public awareness of and concern for the environment in recent years it seems it has often been defined in a very narrow way. Depending on the interest concerned, the environment may be regarded as the issue of polluation. That in turn may relate to particular kinds of pollution, such as industrial or marine pollution. In other cases the concern may be with the built environment. Only rarely is public concern expressed about the social environment and the widening gap in the quality of the environment as experienced by rich and poor. Indeed we are now beginning to see the commercial exploitation of environmental concern. The advertising people have discovered that "green is good for you" and that environment-friendly products open purses and wallets. This of course in one way is a welcome measure of the success of the environment lobby but it can also lead to very unfriendly environment practices being dressed up in a green cloak. British Nuclear Fuels, for example, are now marketing nuclear power by emphasising their concern about the burning of fossil fuels and its consequences for the greenhouse effect.

There is a danger that if the public have to rely on advertising agencies, public relations companies and on professional lobbyists for information on the environment we may get positions which may suit a particular commercial interest but which may not necessarily benefit the environment. That is precisely why we need an independent environment protection agency, to provide information on which we can rely and which we know is not distorted by some vested interest.

Deputy Shatter in his opening speech referred to the concept of sustainable development, defined in the Brundtland report, one I support and one which I feel needs to be teased out in the context of the Irish environment. Unless we do so we risk the debate on the environment becoming dominated by environmental fundamentalists who reject economic growth and who, in some cases espouse a philosophy which is anti-human.

Let us take the current debate on the chemical industry in Ireland. Some people suggest that we should not have this industry at all. What do they mean? Do they mean that pharmaceuticals should not be produced at all and, if so, what then is their position on the availability of modern medicines which relieve pain, prolong life and moderate suffering? Are issues, such as infant mortality and life expectancy, of no concern to them or is it the argument that pharmaceuticals should be produced but not in Cork or anywhere else in Ireland — somewhere in the Third World perhaps? Where does that leave the one world concept and the challenge to think globally? Clearly, it will be necessary to continue to produce pharmaceutical products just as it will be necessary to continue to engage in more indigenous native industry which also generates waste.

It will be necessary to continue to strike a balance between the need to provide employment and the need to protect the environment. Indeed unemployment and now emigration are environment issues. We should look at any suburban housing estate in this city which has an unemployment rate of 50 per cent or more to see what that is doing to the social environment and to see how the lack of meaningful work undermines human dignity and how this in turn is reflected in social and environmental decay. We should also look at what emigration is doing to rural villages. No serious environmentalist can walk away from the issues of employment and emigration.

We need, therefore, to have a comprehensive understanding of the environment and the kind of environment protection agency we establish should reflect this. Unfortunately, the kind of agency being envisaged by the Government does no meet that criterion the Minister of State's statement emphasises the need for the agency to monitor and control industrial pollution and that its initial task will be to concentrate on new developments. The Government's proposal for an environment protection agency amounts to no more than a public relations response to media reports on public concern about a small number of proposed industrial projects. In the absence of an environment protection agency the public's concern about these projects is well justified, particularly when we see the record of some of the industry in the same area but it is taking too narrow a view of the environment to establish an agency solely in response to this.

The Minister of State's proposal to prioritise the functions of the agency and to talk about the assignment of additional functions for the agency on a phased basis is a disaster. This will completely undermine the independence and authority of the agency and will make it no more than a kind of specialist wing of the Department of the Environment. For the agency to be a success it must be able to take an overview of the environment and in that context to decide its own priorities, otherwise we could have the unsatisfactory position where the agency might be established but could not address a particular environmental issue because it had not yet been assigned that function. Public confidence in such a body would not last long.

It seems that Deputy Shatter's Bill comes much closer to the kind of independent agency we need, one which will consider environmental issues in their total context and in which the public can have confidence. For there to be well informed and serious public debate about the relationship between any form of economic activity and the environment we need independent information and, in that regard we need agencies of this kind. For local authorities or fishery boards to enforce the legislation we need the back up of the agency. I agree with the approach in Deputy Shatter's Bill that the primary responsibility for enforcement and control should rest with the local authorities and that the agency should act as a back up and as a means of policing the local authorities.

From whom, and from what, does the environment need to be protected? We have a tendency to externalise the problems. In the past this House was often told that the British and Partition were the cause of our economic woes. Today we have the green equivalent of that. Today the Taoiseach told us that Ireland's Presidency of the European Community would concentrate on the environment and make a major effort to formulate a comprehensive, coherent Community policy for the environment. All of the issues the Taoiseach identified are crucial and he should have the full support of the House in his efforts, but all of the issues are expressed in terms that suggest that the problems with the environment are out there somewhere — the hole over the Antartic, the deserts of Africa and the rain forests of South America. Nowhere in the Taoiseach's speech does he reconcile his proposed environmental crusade in Europe with his neglect of the environment here.

The Taoiseach welcomed the setting up of the European Environment Agency in 1990 while the Government are opposing the Bill currently before the House setting up an environmental protection agency here. Over the next six months the Taoiseach will bring European leaders to a capital city which is choked on smog, to interest them in the warming of the earth's atmosphere and its implications for the world's low lying areas and for food production, as if we did not burn fossil fuels here at all. The Taoiseach will press them to take effective action on immediate issues such as vehicle emissions, water standards, waste disposal and protection of wildlife, in a country where most people use leaded petrol and transport policy is based on the private car, where his Government have compromised on the Water Pollution Bill, where there is no national waste management plan and the incineration of toxic wastes is being given over to the private sector, where some local authorities are abandoning their responsibility to collect domestic refuse and as for the protection of wildlife, this is the country where our Government have allowed the shooting of the Greenland White Fronted Goose, for which we have an international responsibility, and only recently we were told that it will no longer be necessary to apply for a licence for the gassing of badgers. A country which has not given legislative effect to the EC Directives on Environmental Impact Assessments will lead a Community crusade on the environment.

It is much easier to issue press statements condemning Sellafield than for the Government to take the British Government to the European Court as promised, or to tackle the problem of low level radiological waste in this country. Are we not great, talking about the destruction of tropical forests, while the fine for illegally felling a tree is still only a miserly £5. I do not suggest that this country should not be concerned about global environment issues but I am arguing that we should not substitute rhetoric on those issues for action on the immediate threats to our environment. As the Minister of State said last night, we need better arrangements for administering and enforcing codes and a more effective environmental control system. That means taking on vested interests.

I spent two days in Cork recently talking to residents' groups and industrialists. The biggest environmental concern here is with some of the existing industries from which smells are coming. The main problem with new industry is that the people have no confidence in the system of monitoring. The environment protection agency will be worthless if it does not tackle the problem caused by some of our existing industries.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Miss Harney)

It will.

Mr. Gilmore

It will eventually.

Miss Harney

It will initially.

Mr. Gilmore

What about the phased granting of functions to it?

Miss Harney

It was all outlined in the speech last night.

Mr. Gilmore

The agency will have to challenge vested interests such as the coal industry which has frustrated the 1987 Air Pollution Act. It will have to take on the IFA over agricultural pollution. Here, do I detect yet another Fine Gael surrender to the IFA lobby? I would ask Deputy Shatter to explain what section 14 (2) of the Bill is about. As I read it section 14 enables the environment commissioner to issue control orders in respect of contaminents, but section 14 (2) says that the provision does not apply to animal wastes disposed of in accordance with normal farming practices. We know that a unit of milk is 400 times as polluting as a unit of untreated human sewage, that a unit of silage is 200 times as polluting and that a unit of slurry is 80 times as polluting. How does one justify the exclusion of animal wastes?

When I saw Fine Gael's extraordinary performance last week on the Water Pollution Bill, I expressed the worry that Fine Gael's concern for the environment stopped at the farm gate. Does this clause in this Bill confirm my fears? It seems as if it is normal now for environment legislation going through this House to make concessions to vested interests. The Air Pollution Act conceded to the coal industry and that is why we have the smog problem. The Water Pollution Bill is conceding to the IFA and that is why we will continue to have fish kills. The Building Control Bill this morning conceded to the building industry. It would be a pity if Deputy Shatter's otherwise fine Bill were to be afflicted with the same handicap.

If the environment protection agency and its work is going to be constrained by expedients and the need to make concessions to particular economic lobbies, it will never get public confidence and do the job needed. Will it address the problems of the building environment? The destruction of Dublin was not caused by multi-national chemical companies but by home grown speculators charging around this city in their drive for profits. Bungalow blight and ribbon development is the product of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael section 4 motions on planning permissions. The appalling living conditions of many people in private rented accommodation come courtesy of our native landlords. Will the environment protection agency address these environmental problems right here on our door step?

Deputy Shatter already quoted the Brundtland report. That report did not view the environment in isolation. It placed it in a very clear social environment context. It said that poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems and that it is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader prospective than encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality. That is just as valid in our national context. We have to be clear that the environment protection agency, when established, does not surrender to vested interests, that where there is a conflict between the consumer, the public good and a particular commercial interest, it is not the vested interest that wins out.

The Bill that has been proposed by Deputy Shatter has taken on board the precautionary principle. That is something I welcome but there is another principle in environment protection that is not quite as clearly reflected in the Bill, and that is, that the polluter pays. That principle cannot be exercised simply by catching polluters and fining them. That principle has to take a view of the environment acknowledging that it is a publicly owned resource, that the water, the air and the soil are all resources that belong to the people and that any industry that propose to use any of those resources should pay for them. That issue was addressed recently in the Pearse report in the UK. That is an aspect of the Bill on which I intend to introduce some amendments if this Bill gets beyond Second Stage.

Another area where the Bill is not entirely clear relates to access to information. It is critically important not only that the agency is independent but that the work it does, the reports it produces and the information generated, are freely available to the public, so that the public can adopt an informed view on any environmental issue which arises.

With regard to the composition of the agency, I would have preferred if it had been a more representative agency being composed of representatives of different environmental interests. One of the things that would greatly strengthen the independence and public confidence of the agency is if respected environmental organisations like An Taisce, Earthwatch or Greenpeace were represented on the board of the agency. They could bring their own expertise and the information and skills which they have developed over the years to bear on the work of the agency.

Generally I welcome the Bill before us. The Workers' Party will support it on Second Stage. It could be improved in many areas. It is a great pity the Government have decided to reject the Bill at this stage. Deputy Roche talked about the cynical views that are often held outside this House about its workings. The cynicism would be reduced if the Government took a positive approach to the Bill and instead of adopting the normal adversarial approach to issues in this House saw this Bill as the basis on which legislation could be enacted here which would establish statutorily the environment protection agency the general public are crying out for and which everybody agrees now should be established. As I said at the beginning I intend to share my time with Deputy Kemmy.

Mr. Kemmy

I am very grateful to Deputy Gilmore for sharing his time with me. It is a generous gesture and I appreciate it.

I have listened carefully to the debate up to now. Many words have been bandied about but the debate is timely, good and useful. Let us hope its content will be studied far and wide outside this House because there have been important and very sincere contributions, not least the last one by Deputy Gilmore. His was a very thought provoking contribution for anybody who has a fair mind. Very many words have been used to describe the new body we need to protect our environment. The titles suggested included the words, agency, central agency, council, board and executive. Call them what you will because words are not important in this context. What is important is that we have an effective, independent body to see that our environment is protected. That is what the whole thing is about. Talk and good intentions are cheap. We get a great deal of talk on this question but immediate action is called for. The people best qualified should be appointed to serve on the new body, not just time servers, political hacks, yes men or yes women. We have had enough of those in the past on various bodies.

The danger to our environment is on all sides. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is on the very doorstep of this House in this city. Up to recently we as a people have shown a cavalier attitude to and little enough interest in the protection of our environment. Improved living standards and increased industrialisation must not be achieved at the expense of our environment. Economic growth and protection of our environment are compatible. There is no reason that the two should be mutually exclusive. As Deputy Gilmore said, the environment must be looked at and defined in a wider context. You cannot just narrow it down to one or two items. It has many parts, many components.

As the Deputy said, we can start off with water. Increased urbanisation, industrial development and more intensive farming have led to increased demands on our water supply on the one hand and increased water pollution on the other. As a country we have been well served with an almost unlimited supply of water, fresh at that. This very abundance of water has made us indifferent and careless in our attitude to water, our use of it and our respect for it. We need constant vigilance in this area. The year 1987 was the worse in terms of fish kills and flooding and this year was bad enough, too, with fish kills in my own county of Limerick doing away entirely with the stocks of two rivers. It is a good thing this year was so dry, otherwise the run off of agricultural land would have resulted in far more fish kills. We must ensure that we have proper water criteria and quality of the highest standard and that our rivers, lakes and sea are kept free of pollution, that our fishing waters are preserved and that swimming, boating and amenity areas and wildlife sanctuaries are protected and expanded for the recreation of our people. We must ensure that our waterways are not made cesspools through industrial farming or radioactive waste or other such substances. When I was a young boy in Limerick swimming pools were unheard of by people such as we. We were glad to swim in the Shannon. It is a fine river, the greatest in these islands, but people can no longer swim in it because of pollution. Despite the fact that it is tidal for a mile beyond Limerick, those, including young girls and boys, who cannot afford to go to the seaside or to use swimming pools, and who normally would swim in the Shannon can no longer do so because of pollution. That is something we hear little about but we should be ashamed of it.

Air pollution has been talked about for a number of years. We know all about it here in Dublin but in Limerick recently we had foggy weather and the fog contained an element of smog. I would not make sensational statements in this House but I am ashamed to say it is true. It was the first time we had smog in Limerick and we cannot be calm about it; it should not happen. Air quality is now a matter of great urgency in this country and in this city, particularly. We can be thankful that the prevailing winds — perhaps in Dublin we should call them providential winds — blow away the smog, otherwise the Government would have been greatly embarrassed by the smog here. Everybody knows the danger posed to health and to life itself by smog in our cities.

We do not hear too much about noise pollution but it exists for all that. Engineers and road designers have a great obligation to ensure that roads are designed in a way that minimises noise pollution and that they are not built in residential areas where people are affected by noise.

Another problem we hear nothing about is the noise from discos. Perhaps I am somewhat old to talk about discos and disco music but the effect of such noise on young people's eardrums can be serious. I am by no means a kill-joy but I do not see why it is necessary to play disco music so loudly. It makes no sense. I would like to see more attention given to this problem in this House and in our legislation enforcement. In discos there is a great deal of noise and very little music. What music gets into that cacophony is a fugitive music drowned out by the heavy noise. In my opinion disco music makes no contribution to culture or civilisation.

Deputy Gilmore referred to industrial waste. In the past 20 years we have seen changes in the amount and type of industrial waste. This matter needs constant attention, monitoring and action. Litter has not been referred to very much. We need a massive intensive education programme to make our people conscious of the fact that litter is spoiling our cities, towns and countryside. Television and schools could play a role in this. Prevention is better than cure.

As well as setting up this new body to protect our environment we need a national plan linked to Europe because without legislation from Europe we can do nothing to protect our environment. We can learn from the experience of other countries in Europe, especially from the mistakes that were made in Holland, a country which has suffered dreadfully from pollution in recent times. As Deputy Gilmore said, people must have access to information on environmental matters. Nobody, either the public or the private sector must be immune in this area. Wealth should not be able to buy immunity if we set up a body who will have authority, independence and ability to take action.

In the end responsibility will rest with the Government. I am not worried about the name of the new body but they must be effective. We must have action. We have had enough words.

Fianna Fáil speakers have criticised Deputy Shatter's Bill. Some people referred to flaws and imperfections. The Bill is not perfect but Deputy Shatter has worked hard to put it before the House and he must be complimented on that. Deputy Gilmore has pointed to some flaws in the Bill and I agree with him. Farmers should not be left out. The legislation should not stop at the farm gate. The farming lobby in this House is very strong particularly in the Fine Gael Party. I know Deputy Shatter is sensitive to the farming lobby. I am not so sensitive to them. There is no reason that we in this House should not point out some of those flaws. I do so not in any vicious or critical way but in a supportive, helpful way. Whatever flaws the Bill may have and however imperfect it may be in the eyes of some Deputies, it is a genuine attempt to address the problem of pollution and to be constructive in making us aware of the need to set up a body which would be effective and independent. For those reasons I support the Bill.

Mr. D. Ahern

I propose to share part of my time with Deputy Martin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. D. Ahern

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The Bill is timely and I compliment Deputy Shatter on the opportunity he has given us. Perhaps it is an effort by Deputy Shatter to take the limelight away from the efforts made by the Government to bring forward their own environmental protection agency as had been promised some time ago. The Opposition may say their Bill is being brought forward because of the delay on the part of the Government. I would not accept that. Deputy Gilmore says this is a Government response to media hype. I do not agree. It has been obvious for a number of years that the environment is under threat from within our own country and that Government and local authorities must do something to put the matter right. It has been on the agenda for a considerable time and the bringing forward of legislation by the Government is to be welcomed. It is primarily the responsibility of the Government to bring forward legislation. It is all very well for the Opposition to bring forward legislation but ultimately the Government are the paymasters and they will have to judge, based on the resources available, how best the legislation can be framed and brought forward.

Mr. Shatter

Does this reflect the Progressive Democrat view of what Parliament is about?

Mr. D. Ahern

I am giving my own view, as always.

Mr. Shatter

I am just curious as to whether the Minister takes that view.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Shatter will have to meditate rather than interrupt.

Mr. Shatter

I thought the Minister believed Members of Parliament should legislate. It appears that is no longer the case.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure the Minister would not wish the Deputy to transpose his thoughts to her.

Mr. D. Ahern

The recent announcement by the Minister and the Minister of State encompasses what most of us would like to see. Actions speak louder than words and that is why the Minister and his Department have brought forward their proposals now.

Mr. Shatter

But no Bill.

Mr. D. Ahern

Interim arrangements are to be made and the agency will be set up on a non-statutory basis. This shows the haste with which they want to bring this matter forward. This kind of basis has worked quite well in relation to a number of other agencies pending the implementation of legislation.

Deputy Gilmore claimed that the agency might be a specialist wing of the Department of the Environment. Having listened to the Minister of State, Deputy Harney, and read the statement issued recently by the Department, it is quite obvious that the board will be totally independent and based on the model of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Most of us would say the Director of Public Prosecutions is totally independent and some of us would claim he should be less independent and should be made to justify some of his actions. If the agency is based on the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, it will be fully independent.

The advisory council suggested by the Government is novel in that professional people and environmentalists stating a particular view would be able to make recommendations to the board and to the Minister. It would be advisable to have an independent person overlooking this.

Deputy Quinn referred to the fact that An Foras Forbartha have been abolished. The agency proposed is much broader than An Foras Forbartha ever were. I was a member of a county council and with all due respect to the people working for An Foras Forbartha that organisation was not what I wanted as an advisory body for our county council. An Foras Forbartha produced reports to which nobody ever listened. They did not have teeth, which is probably one of the reasons they were done away with. The Minister has outlined the various functions and controls of the agency, which are very important. An advisory service would be necessary but there should be much better liaison with local authorities. My experience was that the local authorities were reluctant to become involved with An Foras Forbartha. Perhaps there should be written into the legislation an onus on the agency to liaise on a constant basis with local authorities.

The Minister referred to the import and export of waste. This will be very important in the years to come. While Sellafield is a major issue where I come from, we on the east coast suffer from a much greater problem, namely the discharge of sewage on both sides of the Irish Sea. A figure of 450,000 tonnes of sludge are produced by us every year, most of which is discharged into the Irish Sea. I live by the sea and I remember being able to swim there as a youngster. Many people would not do that now in the area where I live. There is a particular problem in Dundalk Bay during the summer months when the tide is very low in that a very peculiar type of seaweed has formed which local fishermen say has never before manifested itself in the bay. The suspicion of qualified people with the local authorities is that the quality of the water in the bay is such that this seaweed has accumulated. We have heard of problems in the Mediterranean but we also have problems on our own shores. Quite apart from any protection agency, the Department must make a major investment, perhaps with the help of Structural Funds, in proper treatment plants, particularly along the east coast. We have a number of fairly major treatment plants already but not enough. Towns like Dundalk and Drogheda do not have a treatment plant and they are in effect pumping raw sewage into the sea.

Perhaps the Minister will confirm that any treatment plant built in recent years or due to be built is merely a secondary plant, not a tertiary plant. I understand there is only one tertiary plant in the country, which is in Killarney. I suggest some thought should be given to making it obligatory to have tertiary sewage treatment plants in towns above a certain population. I know the cost of such a plant is quite excessive, but if we are genuine in our desire to protect the environment it is vitally important that we insist that tertiary treatment plants be installed.

The question of smog has been adverted to over the past number of weeks and years. I am disappointed that everybody has homed in on the problem in Dublin, but other areas in the country are also suffering because of the smog problem. Only last weekend in certain housing estates in my town the smog was as bad, if not worse, than it ever was in Dublin. Indeed, I understand that across the Border in Newry they have a similar problem. While I appreciate that Dublin because of its large population has a great problem, other areas, for example Cork or Limerick, suffer from the effects of smog and some provision should be made to deal with the problem in these areas. While the urban council in my town have a view on the smog problem, they have not the resources to deal with it.

Deputy Kemmy was quite right to advert to the problem of litter. In any literature emanating from either side of the House, there have been very few references to litter although I know it is covered by separate legislation. Litter is a major problem. It is a matter of educating our people not to throw litter. Although various efforts have been made to educate them not to litter their environment, it still goes on. The solution is in our own hands. The word should go out from this House to the general public asking them to be less inclined to drop litter.

I think Deputy Kemmy's and Deputy Gilmore's references to farmers, and the IFA in particular, were slightly unfair. I am not a defender of the farming lobby and I come from an urban area, but I have to be honest and say that most of the farmers I come in contact with are genuine and any accidents that occur are the result of carelessness or genuine mistakes. It is unfair to say that various lobbies are able to influence legislation, because I do not think they are. The purpose of a Committee Stage is to put down amendments if we feel they are needed. It is unfair of Members to state that vested interests have been able to influence the Government's position. I do not accept that assertion. The IFA and the farming bodies have made an effort over the years to educate farmers on how to dispose of effluent. While mistakes have been made I believe the situation is getting better.

Finally, I welcome the discussion on the environment and the House will have to address this issue more often in the future. I look forward to proposals being brought forward by the Government as quickly as possible.

Mr. Martin

I welcome the opportunity to debate the entire environmental protection area and more specifically the question of establishing an independent environmental protection agency. There is a growing awareness of environmental issues which has increased considerably in recent years. There is now a far greater degree of public concern about proposed developments in the industrial and agricultural sectors and their potential for harming the environment. This in turn has had major implications for economic development, particularly industrial development. In my area, Cork, there have been a number of controversies on this issue, we had the Merrel Dow saga in Killeagh and the Sandoz project which is under scrutiny at present.

What clearly emerged in these controversies was that the public at large, rightly or wrongly, had lost confidence in the ability of local authorities to monitor major industrial plants effectively. This lack of confidence was widespread. In addition, people also lacked confidence in the IDA's and other public agencies' ability to satisfy public concerns about the environment. It emerged that the only way to restore confidence in our environment protection system was to establish a national independent protection agency with the necessary expertise and resources. Such an agency would guarantee objectively in the assessment of any economic development which would threaten the environment. In the Sandoz debate this was a key demand of people who expressed concern about the project. A second demand was that the Government would comply with the EC Directive to carry out an environmental impact assessment. I am happy that the Government are delivering very satisfactorily on both fronts and this has eased considerably the degree of public concern on the issue.

In passing, let me pay tribute to the Sandoz company who have adopted a very open and professional approach in presenting their case to the community for locating their industry in Ringaskiddy. Eolas conducted a comprehensive environmental impact assessment study and Sandoz made themselves available to all groups who wished to meet them. In addition, Sandoz's approach by the other chemical factories in the area, which is to the general good of industry in Cork.

The fundamental point at issue is not whether we allow industry or chemical industries into the country but that we ensure that all industries have effective and satisfactory methods of treating and disposing of their hazardous waste and that we, in turn, have in place a watertight system of monitoring that process and enforcing the regulations. As a country with high unemployment we simply cannot afford to place a moratorium on industry — I agree totally with Deputy Gilmore in this respect — as some people have advocated in recent debates. In addition, it must be stressed that the chemical industry is not the only industry that produces hazardous waste. All forms of industry produce hazardous waste and to suggest a moratorium on one form is to open the door for similar action on other fronts. What we must do is to guarantee effective monitoring of industry and the Government's proposed national environmental protection agency proposes to do just that.

I agree with the Minister of State, Deputy Harney's statement that it is necessary to separate the pollution control and regulatory functions of local authorities in relation to complex developments from this role in promoting the economic development of their area and the function of providing infra-structural services. I think this is fundamental. There is an inevitable conflict of interests because local authorities want development and they want to improve their infrastructure, but in their desire to achieve these objectives they run the risk of subordinating environmental concerns.

In Cork County Council for example, very few people can question the competence and integrity of the environment officials, particularly Mr. Ian McLean, the environmental officer who has earned a tremendous and outstanding reputation in his field. However, this is only part of the overall structure and at times its preferences and ideas can be subordinated within the overall scheme in the county council.

I could not agree more with the Minister of State when she identified the need to work out a rational division of functions between the Minister, the agency and the local authorities. Deputy Shatter's Bill is defective in this regard. It is vitally important that the new agency should utilise existing resources in the universities and in the local authorities. There is a need to avoid duplication of effort and equipment.

A suggestion has been put to me from UCC that they, and indeed other third level institutions, could house the laboratories and equipment which the new agency would have at their disposal and, by doing this the agency, in tandem with providing an environmental protection service, would be providing better quality education for students in this field. I know that in the chemical department of UCC new equipment is badly needed if up-to-date education is to be provided for students in this area. Similar-type equipment would be required by the agency in the course of its duties. I consider that this represents a constructive and economic use of available resources. Indeed, I see no reason the national laboratory facilities proposed by the Minister in her speech could not be located at UCC. As Cork has a major concentration of pharmaceutical industry and likewise its hinterland is a major agricultural area, I think that Cork, and indeed the university, would be an ideal location for such facilities. Likewise the regional facilities which are being advocated by the Minister in her Bill could be located in other agencies.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must now ask that the Deputy move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.