Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 13 Feb 1990

Vol. 395 No. 6

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

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

Before the debate was adjourned I was making the point that the proposed environment protection agency should make the fullest utilisation of our existing third level institutions in the areas of research and equipment. Rather than spending huge sums on equipment for educational purposes alone it would make a lot of sense if we could make use of and expand the equipment and facilities which are available in establishing an environment protection agency. For far too long we as a society have not used adequately the resources, knowledge, expertise and research facilities available in our third level institutions. I appeal to the Minister to take on board these suggestions when she is establishing the new agency.

I would further ask the Minister to ensure that any new agency will have the power to monitor the operations of local authorities particularly in regard to waste disposal and sewage treatment. Local authorities in general have been rather tardy in their approach to these issues and are falling way behind in the area of sewage treatment in general. For example, the entire sewage of Cork city is discharged raw into Cork harbour. Cork County Council discharge sewage raw into Cork harbour and they have plans to pipe this sewage to Passage West and discharge it raw into the harbour there. Apart from its economic and industrial role, Cork harbour is a wonderful tourist amenity providing boating, bathing and fishing facilities, yet it is being polluted on a daily basis by the local authorities in the area. Such sewage should be treated and both the Government and the Department of the Environment should, as a policy priority, compile a national action programme which will ensure the setting up of secondary sewage treatment plants in all coastal towns and cities over the next few years.

In fairness, the Minister made provision in the recently announced environmental package for the construction of sewage treatment plants in our coastal towns. I welcome the provisions announced in that package. The environmental package announced by the Minister represents a milestone in the development of Ireland's environmental policy. It also highlights the need for the establishment of an environment protection agency to ensure that all local authorities produce specific plans relating to the provision of sewage treatment plants. Last year I tabled a motion to Cork Corporation calling on the authorities to formulate plans to construct a sewage treatment plant to treat all sewage discharged from Cork city into the harbour. My proposal was agreed in principle but to date no action has been taken. I think both the engineers and management envisaged a long time scale for the setting up of such a plant.

In the light of the Government's recent announcement I again tabled a motion calling on Cork Corporation to submit specifically designed plans for a secondary treatment plant to the Department. The overall lack of initiative shown in this area by the local authority in question, and indeed by other local authorities, is a clear illustration of the need for an independent national environment protection agency which will give an impetus to desirable environmental measures which, for a variety of reasons, local authorities might be reluctant to give. There are a number of examples where local authorities tended to put short-term financial needs before desirable environmental measures. It is extremely important that an environment protection agency would be able to force local authorities to take on board and implement these measures.

Another area which demands serious consideration is that of landfill sites in cities and large towns. It is totally unacceptable to locate large landfill sites in very close proximity to densely populated areas. At present Cork Corporation propose to extend the use of the existing landfill site for another 20 years and in doing so to bring it within very close proximity, almost within 100 feet, of a densely populated housing estate. I call on the Minister and the Government to examine this issue. I hope that the proposed new agency will examine the question of the disposal of domestic sewage and in particular landfill sites. They should also explore alternative means of disposing of domestic waste and the whole process of incineration. Perhaps the Department could put forward some concrete proposals in relation to this issue.

A number of people in senior management in local authorities are not looking ahead to what will happen in 20 years because they will not be there. I have asked the senior management in these local authorities what will happen in 20 years' time when landfill sites are full and what choices will be open to us then. If we have to make choices in 20 years' time why not make them in five years' time instead? I should like the Minister to include this issue within the terms of reference of the new environment protection agency.

The location of the environment protection agency has generated considerable interest. I would urge the Minister to give serious consideration to locating the agency in the Cork area, perhaps in an area close to the lower harbour which has a heavy concentration of chemical industry. The satellite town of Carrigaline would be an excellent location for the agency because of its close proximity to the Ringaskiddy industrial estate, about which we have heard so much, and to the harbour area in general which serves a rich agricultural hinterland. As I have mentioned already, there are two fine third level institutions in Cork, University College Cork and the Cork Regional Technical College, which could provide the new agency with substantial research facilities and a steady stream of graduates qualify in various disciplines pertaining to the environment annually. I again ask the Minister to seriously consider locating the proposed environment protection agency in Cork.

In her speech the Minister identified a number of flaws in Deputy Shatter's Bill, particularly in the Second Schedule. The wisest course of action is to await the publication of the Government Bill which is being prepared following considerable consultation with interested parties. I should like to pay tribute to Deputy Shatter for his active and constructive approach to this issue. His Bill is detailed and contains many laudable provisions, some of which can be incorporated in the Government's Bill. This approach indicates that the Fine Gael Party agree with the concept of and need to establish an independent environment protection agency. In that sense Deputy Shatter's Bill has contributed to the overall debate on the environment and increased awareness in the public mind about our environment, which I believe will grow in importance as the years pass.

As the House well knows Ireland started on a rather dangerous course of borrowing in the seventies and it has been a severe struggle, which has caused much hardship to people, just to stabilise the growth of our debt during the past decade.

In relation to the environment, the reality is that we have been running up unpaid debts with nature for an awful lot longer than the seventies. We must get on top of the problems in the nineties. The Government have seriously under-estimated the extent of the behavioural change that will be required if we are to do something solid in securing a better environment and economic behaviour sustainable in the long term for our children and their children's children when they come to deal with development in the world. Sadly, the Government in the programme they have published have made a very poor attempt to deal with a very serious problem.

This is the first opportunity this House has had to examine the environmental action programme published by the so-called green Presidency, which amounts to nothing more than a good public relations exercise. The Government did not even go to the trouble of including a section on an environmentally sensitive use of recycled paper. It is probable that several tropical rain forests had to be chopped down to enable this document to be published. It is the most glossy document to be published by the Government in recent times and even contains colour pictures. The Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, went for a very elaborate launching. All that was missing to complete the perfect job of public relations was the presence of the Green President himself.

The document contains no solid analysis of any environmental problem. There are many references to the spending of money and the programme is stretched over a period of ten years so that the figures appear big enough for the newspapers. However, the Government fail to fix any baselines against which we can judge progress on any of the suggestions made on the spending of money. In that sense no serious attempt has been made to identify the targets which we hope to achieve through the spending of £1,000 million and no indication is given of how we can monitor progress. Furthermore no effort was made to have a planned approach to environmental problems. The only conclusion I can come to is that there are votes in the environment and the Government want to appear to be doing something on the environment so that they can stay on side with these voters. It is sad that this document has been put together in the way it has.

The document contains a curiously clouded fly sheet which you may have noticed, a Cheann Comhairle. This is very appropriate as its main purpose is to cloud our vision of the suggestions made. There is no commitment to reform. I would like to examine some of the elements of the document. Almost 95 per cent of the money to be spent under this marvellous programme on the environment is earmarked for water and sewerage schemes. A figure of £930 million is mentioned as going to be spent during the nineties. This is an impressive figure but the Government fail to point out that this represents a cut of 40 per cent on what we spent during the dismal eighties when the environment deteriorated rapidly. This fact dulls somewhat the gloss the Government have been trying to put on their new-found zeal for the environment.

One project picked out for special attention is the provision of secondary treatment at the Ringsend sewage treatment plant. The foundations for this project were laid in 1986 when a steering committee was set up to develop a water quality management plan for Dublin Bay. However the Government on coming into office scuppered that plan and abolished the steering committee back in 1987. They now seek our applause for their conversion at this late hour to the idea that there should be an improvement in sewage treatment facilities in Dublin. The reality is that the provision of secondary treatment facilities is long overdue in Dublin. Indeed existing EC directives demand the provision of tertiary treatment facilities in Dublin and states that areas suffering from high degrees of pollution should go for tertiary treatment facilities. As someone who swims off the Bull Wall I can tell this House that this is probably the one place in Dublin where Dublin Corporation provide bathing shelters and that they have had to hammer on notices on those shelters stating that they are not meeting the required environmental standards. If that is not an indication of the need to go beyond the provision of secondary treatment facilities and do as the EC recommend I do not know what is.

The document is full of promises but when we read it closely we will see they fall far short of what is being done in the rest of Europe. The Government boast that they are planning to cut sulphur dioxide emissions by 30 per cent but fail to point out that this falls short of the efforts being made by our EC colleagues, virtually all of whom are committed to a 40 per cent reduction. Ireland has received an exemption from the requirements of the EC Directive in this area and is now trying to trumpet an achievement which falls way short of what they are seeking to do. The Government also boast that they are committed to stabilising nitrogen oxide emissions, this at a time when our EC partners are committed to reducing their 1980 emission levels by 20 per cent. We are only committed to stabilising emissions at their 1987 level. Once we begin to delve to see what is meant we realise that it falls far short of what we need.

Reference is made to the need to protect the ozone layer but no attempt has been made to ban the offending CFCs. It does not even set a date by which they are to be eliminated. The document claims that energy conservation is the most effective contribution we can make to the greenhouse effect but it fails to mention that we have one of the worst records in Europe when it comes to energy efficiency and energy conservation which has been studiously ignored by the Government. I will return to that issue later.

There are a number of other points I would like to pick up as it is important that we take a critical look at this document if it is to be, as it is trumpeted to be, the programme for the nineties when we tackle environmental problems. For example, the document states that there is going to be a 10p differential between the price of lead-free and leaded petrol. That decision was implemented in the budget but again the Government fail to mention that the average differential in the EC is between 14p and 15p. Ireland is also one of those countries which dragged its feet when it came to the implementation of exhaust emission levels in motorcars, yet we have been told that this is going to be the green Presidency. They promise that by 1998 there will be no sludge dumping but this is no leap forward or great achievement. We are all aware that international conventions stipulate that it will be illegal to do so by that date. Therefore all the Government are saying is that they will not act illegally beyond a certain date in the nineties.

The section dealing with the issue of recycling and restricting the use of biodegradable products is pathetic. It is purely flannel and no targets have been set down on what reductions will be achieved and no policy instruments have been advocated to show how these will be brought about.

I would like to examine the important question of energy conservation. It rings very hollow to hear the Government speak about energy conservation as it is they who cut investment for the development of new conservation techniques to one-tenth of their 1980 level. We are last in the European league of countries making an effort to deal with this problem. They sidetracked the last special European Fund for a five year energy conservation plan into long-standing projects which were dusted down from the shelves of the ESB and Bord na Móna. Instead of producing a new impetus for conservation, nothing of any value emerged. They have even ignored proper energy management in their own buildings. There have been numerous reports indicating the very large conservation options there are to save money in Government buildings. A figure of 20 per cent has been shown to be quite possible to save in this regard. All the Government have done so far is talk about having a pilot project in the Department of Energy's own building to see if some savings could be made. Is that anything like launching into a major initiative on the energy conservation front? It is a pathetic response from the Government in the area of conservation.

Fine Gael have done very careful analyses of the possibilities in the energy conservation area. In March 1989 we published our programme of what could profitably be done and we indicated that £100 million could profitably be invested over ten years in this area. What do we find in this great new strategy we are to be told about? A commitment of £0.5 million and not a shred of detail as to what the Government plan to do to make energy more efficient. That amount will go no distance towards the 40 per cent we need to cut off our £3,000 million energy bill. That is what other countries are setting themselves as targets. That is what we have to achieve if we are to join with them in doing something sensible about conservation needs and the need to cut carbon dioxide emissions. That is not what we are having. All we have from this Government is a hope and a prayer and a paltry £500,000.

A Cheann Comhairle, I see you are tending to nod off. You probably share my feeling that the heat levels in this House bear testimony to the lack of seriousness on the part of this Government to do anything about maintaining sensible heating standards in their public buildings. We are all here sweltering and the building is grossly overheated. Instead of tackling the Department of Energy's buildings, maybe the Government could add this building to their list.

It might reduce the political temperature in this House.

A number of other issues need to be looked at in the plan the Government are presenting to us. Given the time available I had better move on, but it is important to bear in mind that this is a very cobbled-together strategy, bearing all the hallmarks of a last minute job. I found it particularly amusing in the light of that document, to read the Minister of State's speech and her description of Deputy Alan Shatter's Bill as opportunistic, an effort to jump on the bandwagon, showing all the hallmarks of being rushed and details not adequately thought out. If that criticism were to apply to anyone's action it should be to that of the Minister of State's colleague — and I presume she had some role herself — in putting this programme together. I have tried to look charitably at the Minister of State's comments on Deputy Shatter's Bill to see if there were some reasonable grounds for throwing out what I believe is an excellent initiative by an individual Deputy. Far from bearing the hallmarks of being rushed or opportunistic, it bears the hallmarks of an extraordinary amount of detailed research by an individual Deputy with very little back-up to do the sort of work needed to put together a Bill of this detail and comprehension, as the Minister of State well knows from when she was on this side of the House.

The approach by the Minister of State and the Government is less than gracious to what was done in this Bill. I see no real grounds for throwing this Bill out in the criticisms the Minister of State put in the Dáil. They seemed to distil down to a few items. She makes an unexplained claim that the division of functions between the Minister, the agency and the local authorities is not rational. Unfortunately, she did not go on to say in what way she thought it was not rational. The only thing she said was that the agency should be made the licensing authority for some individual industrial plants as well as the functions envisaged by Deputy Shatter. Maybe that is a worthy proposal and could very reasonably be needed as an amendment on Committee Stage but in no way does it contradict the spirit of what Deputy Shatter's Bill is trying to do.

She makes a series of rather semantic objections to the phraseology used by Deputy Shatter in the objectives he set out for the agency. She claims that "respecting the value we place on our environment" is too ambiguous a term to be in a Bill. I have dealt, admittedly mostly in the energy and communications area, with several Bills. Many of the statements of general functions of a Bill or of the Broadcasting Commission are couched in very broad terms of this nature and no one sought to think how a legal interpretation might be put on all the individual words. Perhaps we could wait for the parliamentary draftsman who may say, "Let us have a tighter phraseology on this", but I think nobody in this House could object to the idea that when we set up an environment protection agency it should respect the value we place on our environment. That is only semantic quibbling.

There is similar quibbling when the Minister of State objects to the notion that Deputy Shatter is seeking to step up the level of environmental monitoring. We all want to step up the level of environmental monitoring. Members on all sides of the House realise we have fallen behind, but the complaint is that this notion of greater environmental monitoring is unclear because it does not say what it is greater than. It is greater than what? With the greatest of respect to the Minister of State, I cannot see that is a sound foundation for throwing out this Bill.

Another objection made here is that the Oireachtas should not be concerned with the staffing and duties of the agency. To my mind most of our time in this House is devoted to looking at Estimates that deal with nothing but the staffing and duties of different Departments and agencies of Government. That is precisely what we are sent here to do. We are here to stand over the spending of taxpayers' money to see that we get value. Again, I cannot see that her objection to section 24 (b) of the Second Schedule is honestly founded. The Minister of State and the Government at this stage should reconsider all this. These objections may have some validity in them and could be introduced on Committee Stage when we could thrash them out and assimilate them into what is a very worthy Bill.

The Minister of State was remarkably silent on what I believe are the fundamental pillars of this Bill which differ entirely from the proposals as rumoured in the newspapers though, sad to say, no Bill has yet been introduced. There are fundamental differences in what we are trying to achieve and what the Government appear to be considering, and a number of these are the nub of this debate and the reason the Government are throwing out this Bill. It has nothing to do with the earlier comments. They revolve around our insistence that this agency should be strong and independent. That means not only an independent appointment, to which the Minister of State appears to have agreed in her reference to some other agencies like the Director of Public Prosecutions, but they have an independent budget. The Minister of State will recall that when she was on this side of the House she was one of the Deputies loud in their criticism of the way the Government attempted to strangle the independent Ombudsman by lack of adequate funding.

It is against that danger that the system that has been drawn up here has been sought to be put in place. We need an independent environmental agency whose budget is assured. That means that their budget would go to a committee of this House and then to the Dáil. It would have great political momentum behind it. It would not be satisfactory that the independent Environmental Protection Agency should go the way the Ombudsman's Office tragically went in recent years. I urge the Minister of State to comment on that point, because I think an agency's budget is just as important as the terms of appointment for this agency.

Equally, Deputy Shatter's Bill has been very innovative in introducing real reform in the way we conduct our business in the Dáil. He refers to a committee of the Dáil which would have a real, practical role in monitoring progress in improving our environment. That is what I believe we were elected on this side of the House to do. The Minister of State is in a privileged position among Deputies in that she is close to the tasks but I believe that the voice of Members from all parties should be heard on the environment. I think the proposed structure is a marvellous innovation which I would like to see the Minister of State take on board.

I know the Minister of State is committed to improving the way the Dáil conducts its business and I think this is a practical way in which we could make great progress. There are other elements of the Bill which sadly are missing from the proposals surfacing in Government press releases. One of these is the power to initiate proceedings against public bodies who fail to honour their responsibilities in regard to the environment. Again, I think this is a very important element of the Bill. Indeed the Minister of State had to go out to Poulaphouca to see how a State agency was not respecting what she and her Minister regarded as their responsibility in regard to the environment. This happens all too often, not just in that individual case but quite regularly. Deputy Shatter quite justifiably made provision in this Bill to give power to this agency to investigate and make recommendations on any element of environmental control by whom so ever it was carried out and by any public body that is threatening the environment. He is giving the agency power to bring proceedings against them and to take effective action to deal with that. Far from being, as the Minister of State suggests, an irrational way of conducting a relationship between local public bodies and the agency, I believe this is a highly rational way of dealing with things. It means that the Environmental Protection Agency only get involved in the affairs of a local authority or other public body if they have good reason to believe that such a body are failing in their duties. The agency have power to investigate, recommend and take effective action. That is what environmental protection is all about. It is not only about monitoring and producing reports but about taking effective action to deal with problems. We have had reports on the smog problem in Dublin since Adam was a boy but it has taken years to deal effectively with it and the matter still has not been resolved. We need an agency of the type that Deputy Shatter encompasses in his Bill and that is an important element of environmental control. I am sad that the Minister of State has not dealt with these practical innovations or said what the Government feel about them. This is the nub of what we are trying to do and has nothing to do with the quibbling on semantics I described earlier.

I have been involved to some extent with Deputy Shatter in the drafting of this Bill. I am particularly concerned with the area of radiological protection. In Fine Gael's view it is vital to include radiological protection within the overall remit of a coherent approach to environmental protection. I think this responsibility has been sadly neglected by the Minister for Energy over the years. It is four years since the incident at Chernobyl and the National Radiological Protection Institute have not even produced embryonic recommendations on how we could deal with another such incident. We do not even have a suggestion from the Department of Energy as to how they will deal with radiological protection. They have done nothing at all about it. We still do not have in place an emergency plan and a continuous monitoring system that would deal fully with a radiological threat to the country.

The Minister for Energy recently went back on a solemn commitment that was made by the former Minister, Deputy Ray Burke, to take Britain to court because of her failings in the area of nuclear safety. Equally, the Minister for Energy has failed to take effective action to deal with the 35,000 Irish homes that are exposed to excessive risk from radon. There has been a long history of evidence about this risk, and recent reports indicate that exposure to radon gas is the second greatest cause of lung cancer, second only to smoking. This is a very serious problem. None of the problems that are vital in the radiological protection area has even been touched upon by the Minister for Energy. This is not the fault of the present incumbent alone but of successive Ministers for Energy.

I completely reject the Government's plan to keep radiological protection within the Department of Energy and under the thumb of the Minister for Energy. Two years ago we saw the disgraceful muzzling of the Nuclear Energy Board by the former Minister, Deputy Burke, when he insisted that all of their subsequent statements would have to be sanitised by his Department because he was not satisfied that they should give the public an independent view of radiological protection issues. Recently the Minister for Energy acted wholly inappropriately in my view in appointing a chief executive to the Nuclear Energy Board without placing an advertisement in the newapapers or having open competition. He appointed a civil servant who was seconded from his Department. That is no way to deal with the appointment of a chief executive of what is supposed to be an important independent agency dealing with radiological protection. Equally I believe it would be senseless duplication if the body dealing with radiological protection was under the Minister for Energy, but that is not the important thing. The Minister for Energy is ill-equipped to deal with the issue of radiological protection. He is not interested in it, he has not bothered with it and he is not capable of doing anything about it.

Radiological protection is an environmental issue and must be seen as such. It is becoming more and more the case that countries that have a large nuclear sector are trying to wrap the shroud of environmental merit around them saying that nuclear energy is environmentally friendly. This has emerged because the task of radiological protection is all too often put under the thumb of Ministers for Energy whose interest is to see that we have cheap energy and is not primarily concerned with the environment. That is why I believe it is critical that the area of radiological protection, an important area of environmental protection, is under a strong independent agency of the type advocated by Deputy Shatter in this Bill.

It is not too late for the Minister to reconsider her position on the Bill. I think the Bill is a readymade vehicle which will provide excellent legislation for the nineties. As yet the Government do not appear to have produced a Bill.

Plenty of promises.

There have been plenty of promises and indeed a statement. I had occasion to ask the Taoiseach today whether some of the stated legislative schedule set out in the environmental document would be met; he said that he would not commit himself but to come to his office and that we could talk about it. That is no way to deal with this issue of having environmental protection legislation passed. The Bill before us in my view is excellent and a great deal of work has been done on it by a Deputy who is more than willing and has a proven record of accommodating views from all sides of the House. I ask the Minister of State at this late stage to agree to take the Committee Stage of this Bill where she could bring forward her proposals for amendments and improvements which would certainly be taken on board. We would then have genuine joint effort by Members in this Chamber to frame a Bill on the important environmental front that would protect us in the nineties.

This is the first occasion I have had to address the House while the Minister of State, Deputy Harney, has been representing the Government. I congratulate the Minister on her appointment and wish her well in this important Ministry.

The whole question of the environment has moved to centre stage and rightly so. For a number of years well meaning individuals were highlighting problems relating to the environment and the need to protect it. To some extent they may have felt that theirs were voices crying in the wilderness but the growing international awareness of the importance of the environment and also some major catastrophes in various parts of the world, particularly relating to industrial operations, have highlighted the need to look more closely at our own arrangements for protecting the environment. I welcome the major debates under way on environmental issues and the need for governments throughout the EC and the rest of the world to take proper action to protect the environment and to discriminate positively with regard to investing in environmental protection. Only by acting individually as governments and countries and then collectively on an international scale can we hope to make real progress on these issues.

All of us understand that an emergency far from Ireland can have major repercussions for us. We saw what happened in the Chernobyl incident, the effects of which were felt across the Continent of Europe to our own country. It affected the products on some of our farms and in our neighbouring country, Wales, the infection of sheep was directly related to what happened at Chernobyl. The world is very small in relation to natural or industrial disasters and for that reason there is a need to spell out clearly where governments are going in relation to protecting the environment.

We must start in the area of education. The protection of our environment is not confined exclusively to the major issues which we speak about in debates of this kind, such as air pollution control, water pollution control, marine and inland water pollution; these are the topical issues, but the protection of the whole environment in which we live goes far beyond that. Education beginning in the primary school has an important role to play. Damage to the environment is equally important if it occurs in our parks where we have decided to plant thousands of trees and have discovered damage due to vandalism. The graffiti artist has an impact on the environment. Major road developments which do not take account of the topography of an area impact on our environment and have to be taken into account. These may not be as topical as the major issues to which I have referred but nevertheless they are extremely important, right down to the basic issue of litter in our streets and open areas. All these matters must come into the debate on protecting and improving the environment. I welcome debates of this kind because they continue to highlight the need to take action in specific areas.

I particularly welcome the environment action programme which has been announced by the Government. This constitutes a blueprint for the future and I would not be nearly as pessimistic as Deputy Richard Bruton when he referred to the various sections of that programme. To be successful an action programme must be specific and set out targets and objectives. This has been done. One can study in any section of the programme the targets which have been set and in time these may be measured against performance. It will be an easy matter to monitor what is happening throughout the nineties and ascertain if the targets of this programme are being met or ignored. The objectives are written down at last in a global way.

The programme would be weakened to some extent if the financial resources were not made available to support it. Too often we have had reports seeking certain specific achievements, not necessarily in the area of the environment. Some of these reports have been good on rhetoric and sound on what might be desirable, but they have lacked the necessary financial support. This action programme is strong because it sets out the targets and objectives and matches them with the financial contribution, spelling out in detail the finance to be made available under the various sections. Provision has been made in the 1990 budget to deal with the implications of the environment action plan and to get underway in regard to meeting specific targets and objectives.

That is an indication of the commitment of the Government and the Minister to achieving those targets. Some of them are undoubtedly very ambitious and will take the decade to achieve but at least the targets and objectives are set out and there are dates by which we can monitor the performance of the programme. It will be an easy matter to watch the Estimates prepared each autumn and the budgets produced in January each year to see if the commitment of the Government is being maintained by virtue of the financial resources made available to support the continued implementation of this excellent action programme.

There are several areas within the programme on which progress has been called for by individuals, organisations and local authorities. The report refers to most of the areas that have given cause for concern and in respect of which there is need to improve environmental protection and other aspects of the environment. This programme constitutes a beginning which will need to be backed up by additional financial investment and legislation.

The Minister of State, in referring to the Government's proposed Environment Protection Agency, has clearly spelled out the role envisaged for that agency. Indeed, its role will be extremely important in dealing with the issues to which I have referred in regard to the protection of the environment. It is envisaged that the agency will be responsible for the control and regulation of development likely to cause a major risk to the quality of our environment. All of us welcome that provision because, for too long, the control and regulation of developments has been dispersed among different agencies largely dependent on local authorities.

The agency will also be responsible for the general monitoring of the quality of our environment, an essential prerequisite to any orderly protection of the environment. The agency will also support back-up and advisory services together with environmental research. That will be the broad thrust of their functions as the Minister envisages them.

I am keen to ensure that the new agency will not be divorced completely from local authorities because the latter have a very important role to play in planning control and regulations. Any agency involved in the protection of the environment will be required to work fairly closely with the planning authorities through the various local authorities. That is why I welcome the Minister's commitment to there being a linkage between the agency and the various local authorities. It would not be wise to divorce this agency from the local authorities because of the unique role the latter have been playing in environmental matters. I envisage the role of local authorities continuing to be important in this area.

Turning to the Bill before the House, undoubtedly there are some provisions with which none of us would quarrel. Indeed, it might have been easier for Deputy Shatter to achieve his objective had he awaited the Government Bill and sought to insert various provisions of this one therein. That would have been a reasonable alternative course of action. That is at present being done in another special committee of this House, that on the Companies Bill, of which committee I am a member, when differing points of view from different sides of the House can be accommodated. I should have thought it might have been possible to do the same with regard to this Bill.

Perhaps Deputy Flood would explain why the Government would not allow this Bill to go to a special committee and then have amendments accepted.

I am just trying to be of assistance, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Deputy Flood's contribution would be of greater benefit without Deputy Shatter's interruptions.

As Deputy Flood is making such a sound contribution I thought I might be of assistance.

As it is a very sound contribution I suggest that Deputy Shatter listen to it. Whether he likes it or not he will have to listen to it quietly. Deputy Flood to continue without interruption.

I was simply trying to make some helpful suggestions to Deputy Shatter but obviously——

If the Deputy would make them through the Chair it might be less provocative.

I think the Deputy wishes the Opposition simply not to operate at all as legislators in this House.

No, they are more than welcome to operate; we welcome that. Any suggestions I make are done in a positive fashion. Indeed, the suggestion I made in regard to the Fine Gael Bill was done in the best of spirits and not intended to antagonise the proposer of this Bill, who I am sure spent a great deal of time and effort bringing it thus far.

There are certain aspects of this Bill which will give rise to concern and it is with those I might deal now. For example, in section 1 there is a definition of "contaminant". There has been much debate on what precisely would form a contaminant. For example, in agriculture this raises an important issue, when slurry might be deposited on fields which, under normal weather conditions, need not pose an environmental problem. However, it must be recognised that, if weather conditions deteriorated rapidly, that slurry could then become a serious contaminant. That contingency is not spelled out in the definitions section and could give rise to difficulties for the agricultural sector. It is possible to carry out such an exercise on land which can be affected by conditions other than carelessness on the part of anybody in that sector.

I might refer also to the proposal to have an environmental commissioner appointed. In his contribution Deputy Shatter referred to the remunerative conditions of such an appointee being equivalent to those of a High Court judge. I am led to the conclusion that perhaps the Deputy has in mind the appointment of a High Court judge to this post. I should have thought that any such appointee should be drawn from a scientific or technical background. It is my belief that, in order to be suitable, any such appointee be highly qualified on a scientific or technical basis.

I am also intrigued by the proposal that an Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment be established. From my limited experience in this House the intention behind the establishment of any such committee is to remove from this Chamber powers that ought rightly remain here. There is also reference to staffing arrangements and financial management. I would not be convinced that the management of the agency, as proposed in this Bill, would lend itself to that mechanism. I see no reason we should not establish the agency, give them their independence, appoint staff in accordance with their terms of reference and allow them come into being on that basis. I cannot see any compelling reason to establish a special committee of this House to deal with and oversee that agency. I would much prefer to see that take place in this House.

Then when will we get debate?

If the agency is to be independent it ought be seen to be so——

Obviously the Deputy does not understand the Bill.

——and ought not necessarily be subject——

Deputy Flood will appreciate that, by responding to interruptions, he might be presumed to be encouraging them. Perhaps the Deputy would ignore the interruptions and deliver his contribution.

Perhaps Deputy Flood would like a copy of the Bill to see exactly what it proposes.

Deputy Owen will be speaking and she will get the protection I am affording Deputy Flood. The Deputy in possession, without interruption.

The interruptions are so enthusiastic I am continually drawn to respond.

The contribution is so stimulating it is very difficult to resist.

Each man has his own sense in this House.

And woman.

There are people who might share a similar view to the other side and therefore we cannot presume too much in that regard. Deputy Flood, without interruption.

The next issue I would like to refer to is the establishment by the agency of regional environmental units. Essentially, the idea makes sense but nowhere can I find an elaboration of that proposal. To be successful, the establishment of regional units would require a very considerable investment in technology. They would be toothless wonders if they were not supported by major technical investment. Nowhere, in any of the documents from the Fine Gael side that I have read, can I find reference to that fact. Local authorities, individuals and organisations probably would have less confidence in those regional units if they were not supported with the sort of investment I am speaking about. As I am coming to the end of my time——

Maybe the Deputy would take the time to read the Minister's speech regarding his own Bill. He said there would be regional units.

Yes, but he has gone on to indicate that it is essential that those regional units would be properly staffed and also, as I understand it, that they would receive the appropriate investment from a technological point of view. That is the problem that existed previously when, for example, individual large industries were simply unable to get support from local authorities for monitoring testing, analyses and so on.

That is why we want to set up regional units.

One need not go further than Tipperary in this regard. The regional units must have proper investment and support. Nowhere in the Bill, as proposed by Deputy Shatter, can I find clearly spelled out how this agency will be accessible to the public. I have studied the Deputy's contribution on this Bill but I cannot find in it the specific entitlements of the public to have accessibility to the work of the agency. If such accessibility does not exist, when the agency involves itself, for example, in deciding on environmental issues in an industrial development the confidence of the public, or indeed local authorities or any other State agency, would be very much diminished. That is an important issue.

The Minister for the Environment stated he will ensure that an information centre on the environment will be established and he has provided in this year's Estimates and in the budget, a sum of £500,000 for such a centre. That is the correct way forward. The type of agency which we on the Government side are speaking about would attract people who need information and assurance.

The Government's commitment to establish such an information centre augers well for the Government Bill which will soon be published. The capacity of such a centre to link up by computer with our library services around the country would enable more and more young people to become involved in matters concerning the environment, to take up projects at school on the issue and to participate in debates and discussions on environmental issues. As I said at the commencement of my contribution, it is in that way that we will strengthen the awareness of the need to protect, improve and enhance our environment. That is the difference, as I see it, between the Fine Gael Bill which we are discussing and the proposal from the Government with regard to information availability.

To some extent there is an overlap between the agencies of State with regard to air pollution, water pollution, the planning laws, waste and other environmental aspects. We have to find a way in which we can bring all of these organisations more closely together so that they will function more efficiently, be more accessible and will contribute in a much more positive way towards dealing with matters of concern with regard to the environment.

I would like to touch on the need to come to grips with the whole question of the handling and storage of toxic waste materials. This is an important issue that has bedevilled this country for some time. There was a safety valve up to recent times whereby we could export such waste material but the export outlets are closing off rapidly and, therefore we will have to come to terms with the need to provide our own facility. I welcome the Government's commitment to allowing the establishment of a waste incinerator but I would caution the Minister that it will be necessary to tread very carefully in the establishment of such a facility. It is essential that the general public be assuaged and that they have confidence in such a project. No attempt should be made, as happened in the Baldonnel area of my constituency, to locate such a facility without the consent of the public. That project was cancelled due to large-scale public demand in the area. Nevertheless, it does not take away the necessity to provide such a facility. The Government's approach to a waste incinerator is the correct one but I caution the Minister to ensure that all aspects of it are considered thoroughly before location and type is finally decided.

I have touched on the various weaknesses of the Bill. I believe the best approach to the protection of the environment is to take on board the programme as published by the Government but this would have to be supported by appropriate legislation. All of us accept that that will have to be done. The agency could not act independently of local authorities. They would have to have the necessary resources and staff and would have to be accessible to the public. It is for that reason that I particularly welcome the Minister of State's commitment that an advisory council be established.

The Minister has assured us that various interested groups and organisations would be represented on that council and that it would not be confined to individuals, professional bodies or organisations who might have a particular interest. I want to see on that council representatives from a broad range of organisations, perhaps taking different points of view on the environment. It is only in that way that the public, individuals, industrialists, local authorities and organisations, will have the necessary confidence in an agency that will play a most important role in the future development of this country. This agency will impinge on all our lives and the way in which the environment protection agency as envisaged by the Government discharge their functions will to some extent determine our quality of life. I welcome the Government's initiatives and I respect Deputy Shatter for putting forward his Bill, but I would ask him at this stage——

But not enough.

——to withdraw the Bill and endeavour to include his proposals in the Government legislation which is coming forward.

We have no Government Bill and we will not have one this side of the summer.

What about a bit of reasoned thought on that side of the House, and accept our Bill?

We are reasoned.

Are we getting here a slight overspill from some other authority, a county council friendly attitude, perhaps? It is not permissible here.

With the permission of the House I would like to share my half hour with Deputy Owen.

We can anticipate the permission of the House for that. Agreed.

It is a welcome change that before Christmas and again tonight we can have a fairly detailed though limited discussion on an issue at the heart of our quality of life and at the heart of industrial development policy. Whether or not we agree on the details of the Bill, at least we are now talking about this important issue.

If practices on this earth remain unchanged man will not survive another 50 years on this planet. Most environmentalists would agree that unless our civilisation alters its course of environmental destruction we are on a rendezvous with global disaster. I am not overstating the situation. This year alone one acre of tropical rain forest will be destroyed every second and several species of wildlife will disappear each month. We have changed the make-up of the earth's atmosphere. Each year carbon dioxide levels are increasing by 0.4 per cent, methane levels by 1 per cent and chlorofluorocarbons by 4 per cent and the nitrous oxides in our atmosphere will be increasing by 0.25 per cent. These figures are meaningless to a lot of people but such activity cannot continue without inflicting serious harm on the human race and on the planet. In our drive for financial growth we have fouled our air, land and water, and we have plundered and squandered our natural resources to such an extent that the human race has become the enemy of the planet.

We now must look nearer home. What can we as a people do about the pollution of our land, seas, rivers and atmosphere? We can do a lot. We were very ignorant until recently of our environmental obligations. Indeed, environmental protection was not a political issue until three or four years ago. Up to then it was a Cinderella issue where a few cranks like myself and Deputy Gerard Brady came into the House troubling a Minister on an Adjournment debate to debate nuclear dumping, the pollution of our waterways and so on. There was little interest in the issue. At one time Deputy Brady and I arranged a visit to Windscale and we found it hard to get any takers for the visit. Thankfully the scenario has changed and every Tom, Dick and Harry, not to mention a few Charlies, is an expert on environmental pollution. We now have a green Taoiseach and a green Presidency in the European Community.

Be sure you are not leaving out the Marys.

I am sure you are not leaving out the ladies.

Also the Marys and the Pádraigs. Times have changed, Deo gratias. Unfortunately it is too late for many of our lakes, waterways and forests where the damage is irreversible. There is time to reverse a lot of the damage that has been done but even to this day we have no clear-cut programme on environmental protection. We pay a lot of lip service but we have no real policy. Despite all the controversies in recent times in relation to environmental protection and industrial development there is no need for conflict if we have a proper policy. Industrial development and environmental protection can easily co-exist if we have safeguards and laws to ensure that they can go hand in hand.

The last time I counted the agencies responsible in one way or another for environmental protection, I counted 11, including the local authorities and health boards. That disjointed approach to environment protection resulted in overlaps in some areas and serious omissions in others and led to frightening inadequacies.

A lot of the controversy which arose recently — and I have in mind my own beloved south-west region — arose because of a lack of confidence in the statutory bodies responsible for environmental protection. The statutory bodies neither had the legislation to back up what they wanted to do nor the resources to carry out their obligations under existing law. The time is long overdue for an adequate environmental protection policy and an agency. I proposed such an agency a number of times in 1983 and also in this House and in the Fine Gael environmental policy document published in 1985, long before the 1987 policy document of the PDs.

You are a man after your time.

A man before my time. Many things had to go wrong, however, before we came around to realising that central overall control was needed. Long before environmental protection became an issue projects were drawn up but the Government were only jolted into activity by the recent controversies resulting in serious job losses and retarded industrial development in the regions. The rise of the Green Party and the Chernobyl disaster jolted the Government into activity too.

We heard some double talk this evening on the disposal of toxic and industrial waste. There is double-talk in the environmental action programme, promises, promises. There is no indication of any action in relation to an issue that has badly compromised us in our dispute with Britain on the dumping of nuclear waste off our coast and in the selling of Ireland to multinationals. We do not have a policy on the disposal of hazardous, toxic or industrial waste. Despite all the hype, the Government are passing the buck and asking some promoters to bring about the introduction of a toxic waste treatment plant somewhere in Ireland. I submit the reason we do not have such a plant is a lack of backbone. The Government will not make a decision; it is like the itinerants, they can go anywhere except in my backyard. That is what has happened in relation to this issue and it has compromised us internationally and at home on a number of points.

There has been much lip-service in relation to nuclear dumping and the discharge of nuclear waste into our seas. Ministers thumped tables and made grand speeches about Britain being brought before the European Court in relation to nuclear dumping. They talked about Britain's irresponsible attitude but it was all hot air because, at the end of the day, we could not do anything as we were dependent on Britain to dispose of our toxic and industrial waste. I was in Sellafield two years ago and the authorities there proudly took me to one of their dumps nearby and showed me where they accepted and disposed of some of the Irish nuclear waste. That totally undermined my argument in relation to their stance on the disposal of nuclear waste. It compromised the Government and me in this regard.

Deputy Bruton was right when he said that the radiological question should be taken out of the hands of the Department of Energy. Indeed the Nuclear Energy Board — as they were then — were hostile to some of my pronouncements because they had a vested interest in the matter. They were tied to the policies of the Department of Energy and compromised in their attitude to the whole question of nuclear waste and its discharge into our seas.

When Deputy Shatter published his Bill — and when the Government indicated that they would publish theirs in relation to an environmental protection agency — I said that the agency should have their centre in Cork. It would be an exercise in decentralisation and a commonsense approach because Cork and the greater Cork area are major centres for pharmaceuticals and chemicals in this country.

In relation to the pollution of our rivers, a very alarming report landed on my desk recently. It is called The Greening of the River Lee and contains a report from the south-west fisheries board that the River Lee is not beautiful any more but is the most polluted river in the country. It gives reasons for this and puts forward proposals as to how the problem could be resolved. The case of the River Lee can be repeated ten times over in the rest of the country; recognition should be given to the report and the proposals taken into consideration by the new agency.

Sewage treatment is also a major issue and members of local authorities and this House can no longer stand over the practice of local authorities in dumping and discharging sewage into our rivers and harbours. I hope the aspirations contained in this document will be followed through by real action. The discharging process, even by my own local authority and Cork County Council into the River Lee and Cork harbour, should be terminated as soon as possible by a major allocation from the Government for a modern sewerage plant which will treat sewage outfall from the town and city.

Environmental protection policies cannot be taken in isolation because they are indirectly linked to our policies in relation to energy. There was a terrible contradiction in the budget. It talked about transferring to clean sources of energy but the Government imposed extra VAT on electricity which will inhibit the growth in its usage. I ask the Government to be more consistent in this regard.

I do not have time to go into the nuts and bolts of the Bill as Deputy Shatter did so in his usual brilliant fashion at the outset of the debate. However, I ask the Government, during their Presidency of the EC, to let this Bill go through the House. It has been clearly thought out and, if I get an opportunity to debate it on the next Stage, I will make certain points. I appeal to the Government not to kill the Bill. It deserves to be passed for the good of the country, the environment and our industrial development.

I wish to thank Deputy Allen for sharing his time with me. I congratulate Deputy Shatter on an excellent, well researched and well thought out Bill which has been warmly welcomed by many agencies. Indeed it is the only Bill that deals with setting up an environmental protection agency. Despite an announcement on 5 December — obviously timed to pre-empt the debate in the House — and despite the publication of this non-environmentally friendly document on the hardest quality paper, Deputy Shatter's Bill is the only authentic one. The Government's document is printed on paper which any environmentalist will tell you causes the most destruction and takes the most number of trees to produce. I would have thought, at the very least, that the two Ministers in the Department of the Environment would have followed the example of other agencies and independent groups and published the document on recycled paper. However, they did not. It is on highly glossy paper which is very unfriendly to the environment.

Deputy Flood said Deputy Shatter should have waited for the Government Bill. Deputy Flood has now left the House but I suggest we will be a lot older and greyer before that Bill is introduced. I am nearly one year older since I first heard talk about the Government bringing in an environmental agency protection Bill. It is interesting to note that when the Minister of State, Deputy Harney, was on the Opposition benches as a member of the Progressive Democrats, her party were very strong in their demands that the Government should accept Deputy Shatter's judicial separation Bill. They called on the Government to accept such a Bill as they did not have one of their own. The Minister of State should use the same criterion now and accept Deputy Shatter's Bill as I am sure he would be quite content to accept necessary amendments. If we have to wait much longer for a Government Bill the impact of the green Presidency will be lessened.

For many years we have had a schizophrenic attitude to the environment. During the sixties we attempted — and succeeded — in selling this country as a very good industrial location on the fringe of Europe, a place that had a fine environment, a pleasant lifestyle, clean rivers, clean seas and clean air. We sold ourselves aggressively in that way but all the time we neglected to look at the downstream effects of some of the industries we were welcoming. Even more serious is the fact that by subterfuge and deception we encouraged industries to set up here on the basis of false promises. For example, an industry on the north fringe of Dublin city that makes an industrial diamond product came here making it clear that they would have a non-hazardous chemical waste to dispose of. It was understood that that waste could not be disposed of at the usual domestic tip-head and they were assured that a proper facility would be available for them within one year of them commencing operations. That industry employs 400 people.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn