Amendment No. 30 is in the name of Deputy Shatter. Amendments Nos. 31, 32, 36, 37 and 38, with amendment No. 30, form a composite proposal, while amendment No. 35 is an alternative. We had decided to discuss together amendments Nos. 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37 and 38, by agreement. Is that still satisfactory? Agreed.
Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Bill, 1989 [ Seanad ]: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 30:
In page 19, subsection (2) (a), line 47, to delete "make" and substitute "prepare draft".
—(Deputy Shatter.)
I welcome the fact that the Water Pollution Bill is back before the House on Committee Stage. It is some months since we last discussed this important legislation. It is particularly appropriate as we enter the high fish kill season that this Bill should be before us. Perhaps the Minister would indicate the incidence of pollution so far this year and the incidence of fish kills, if she has that information.
To some extent the roles of Government and this Opposition party are somewhat reversed. I find myself addressing section 21 defending the original section in the Bill which the Government put through the Seanad against amendments put down by both the Government and Fine Gael. Section 21 is very important because it is concerned with regulating and prohibiting certain agricultural activities in or near water systems. The logic behind this is that certain types of agricultural activity, for example, the spreading of slurry, the spraying of certain types of pesticides or the use of certain types of fertilisers in some areas can cause serious water pollution and, secondly, that they cumulatively contribute to an insidious form of pollution which causes major problems. In addition, there are problems associated with the location of slurry tanks, silage pits, etc., and the carrying out of certain types of agricultural activities near lakes and rivers.
These types of activities do not cause the major discharges into rivers or lakes which would normally be detected by water pollution officers and prosecuted; they are the kind of activities which, if they continue over a period, contribute in a cumulative fashion to water pollution. The purpose of section 21 was to enable local authorities to make by-laws regulating those type of activities and to prohibit other types of activities, for example, to say that a particular pesticide cannot be used near or within a certain distance of a lake or river, certain kinds of fertilisers cannot be used or a slurry tank or silage pit cannot be located within a certain distance of a lake or river, all of which seem to be perfectly reasonable.
There are now three positions on that proposal. The first position is the original Government position which, so far as this debate is concerned, is the one I am arguing for and is the one contained in the Bill passed by the Seanad. The second position is the new Government position which they arrived at after their negotiations with the IFA and which is now being articulated by the Minister of State. The third position is the Fine Gael position. This is the undiluted original IFA position which is now being put by Deputy Shatter even though I suspect he does not believe it.
Section 21 as it stands will enable local authorities to make by-laws and provides that they shall allow 30 days for objections to be made to them. They will then be sent to the Minister for approval and will come into force on the approval of the Minister. After that there is a procedure whereby they can be appealed to the Minister and if, having heard the appeal, the Minister is satisfied they have to be amended or annulled that can subsequently be done. That proposal contained in the Bill which was passed by the Seanad seems to be perfectly reasonable.
The new Government position, contained in the Minister's amendment, is that the by-laws should not come into force until after an appeal has been heard by the Minister, if an appeal is lodged. That is an exact replica of what happened in regard to the Air Pollution Act which caused it to be frustrated. If we allow local authorities to make by-laws, somebody who lodges an appeal with the Minister can effectively frustrate the entire procedure for a very long period, as happened with the Air Pollution Act. If a local authority become aware that farmers in a certain area are using a particular kind of pesticide which they know will cause considerable water pollution and they decide to make by-laws to prohibit its use in that area, even under the original proposal it will take some considerable time for that to be done. Under the new Government proposal a farmer will be able to make an appeal to the Minister and effectively frustrate the local authority from making that by-law.
The Fine Gael position is even more extreme. They propose that not alone should the Minister have to hear the appeal but that the by-laws should be brought before Dáil Éireann and approved by it before they are made. This would mean that even if there was a remote chance of a Minister for the Environment, with all of the responsibilities he has, of eventually getting around to making the by-laws or approving them they would still have to be brought before Dáil Éireann. We know from experience, with the delays for example, in passing legislation, the chances this House would have of finding time to approve individual sets of by-laws for agricultural activities in certain areas.
I have noticed over the five and a half months of the Green Presidency that the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of State have become very fond of using the term "the precautionary principle", particularly when they are attending international conferences. This section deals with the precautionary principle, identifies a source of pollution and proposes that instead of waiting until the pollution happens we should do something to try to prevent it from happening. Section 21 of the Bill, as passed by the Seanad, proposes to put into effect the precautionary principle in so far as agricultural activity and water pollution are concerned. However, that principle has now been abandoned for the simple reason that before the last general election the IFA applied the heat to the Government and forced them to abandon the arrangements contained in the original Bill, to weaken the Bill and to provide for this appeal procedure to be implemented before the by-laws could come into effect.
I want to remind the House, if that is necessary, that we are dealing with the Committee Stage of the Bill. I wish to dissuade the Deputy from making what seems to me to be a Second Reading speech.
I am not making a Second Reading speech.
Perhaps the Deputy will then relate his remarks more closely to the amendments before us rather than talking generally about the Bill.
I should like to refer to a document circulated by the Minister for the Environment before the last general election and which deals specifically with this section and the power of local authorities to make by-laws. In that document the Minister said an amendment would be made to the Bill removing the provisions which would have required compliance with by-laws once they were made by a local authority but before the Minister had decided to confirm, modify or annul them. That is the proposal contained in the amendment the Minister has put before us today. He proposes amending section 21 so that the by-laws will not come into effect until the procedure of the appeal has been gone through. This will effectively frustrate local authorities from making by-laws which is what will happen in practice, it will negative the effect of section 21 as it was originally intended and will mean, in practice, that local authorities will have little or no power to influence or make regulations covering agricultural activities which they believe, from their experience, will cause water pollution. This is a very retrograde step and will result in the continuing problem of water pollution and dead fish being hauled out of rivers.
My contribution will be very brief. Fine Gael believe it has taken far too long to have this legislation brought before the House. We regret that it has taken a number of weeks for the Committee Stage to be brought back into this House after the last occasion on which we discussed the Bill. I want to make a general remark which I believe is relevant to our approach today.
We regard it as essential to complete this Committee Stage today and to take Report Stage early next week so that this legislation can be enacted before the summer season starts. I say this because of the appalling incidence of water pollution we had last year, 111 major water pollution incidents which resulted in more than 30,000 fish being killed. This legislation was first published in January 1989 but due to its defects when originally published it has taken until now to get to Committee Stage. We want to see this legislation on the Statute Book. In so far as we are making amendments to this legislation that might bring it back into the Seanad, I urge the Minister to complete it today to get it back into the Seanad rapidly so that we can complete it next week and have it on the Statute Book.
In regard to section 21, I am somewhat amused by Deputy Gilmore's contribution. Deputy Gilmore wants to maintain a pretence that the only party in this House in any way interested in or committed to the environment is The Workers' Party. That is not the reality. I am proud it was my own party who published the legislation establishing the Environmental Protection Agency and the comprehensive environment programme that resulted, some nine or 10 months later, in the Government producing a programme of their own. My concern about section 21 is one I would have expected Deputy Gilmore to share. The section as originally drafted envisaged a local authority setting out by way of by-laws detailed provisions as to how farmers should deal on a day-to-day basis with agricultural problems on their lands. I agree with Deputy Gilmore that some of our problems in the area of water pollution are the result of some sections of the farming community behaving without regard to the impact on the environment and the pollution caused by the use of various fertilisers. It is a principle of The Workers' Party that local communities should have the opportunity to make a direct input into local government policy matters.
I would have expected Deputy Gilmore to recognise that nowadays the overwhelming majority of farmers acknowledge that they themselves have a vested interest in protecting the environment. It is not just in the interests of the community but in the interests of good farming that water pollution be minimised. The type of incidents we have seen in past years as a result of people running piggeries and spreading fertilisers without taking into account the damage they were doing to nearby lakes and rivers are no longer tolerated by the overwhelming majority of farmers. They recognise that the protection of the environment, of rivers and lakes, is consistent with good farming. The farmer will not be thanked if he poisons a river and thereby affects his neighbour's cattle half a mile downriver. What we are dealing with here is a small group of irresponsible farmers whom the various farming organisations are trying to persuade to start behaving responsibly in the context of neighbouring farmers and the community.
Section 21 as originally drafted envisaged that the local authority would make by-laws which would become immediately operative. When they were operative and when people could be prosecuted members of the farming community realised that there was something seriously wrong with the by-laws, something not practical in them and they did not provide the environmental protection that was required. I do not agree with Deputy Gilmore that most of the farming community have a vested interest in preserving polluting techniques.
That is not my view.
His view seems to be that there is a majority of rogue farmers who want to deliberately disrupt the application of these by-laws and who produce spurious reasons to prevent them becoming operative. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of farmers have a vested interest in ending pollution. There is a possibility — and I would hope that Deputy Gilmore would agree with me on this — that officials in local authorities who present draft by-laws to their local authorities for approval may not initially always get it right, that the by-laws may not have enough protections in them or may lay down provisions that are impracticable in the context of running a farm. The Fine Gael amendments were designed to stimulate the Government well in advance into looking again at these sections so that when we come into this House we would be able to address the problems rapidly. It was certainly never envisaged that we would wait for a Committee Stage debate in June 1990 to get down to the issue.
I have no theological attachment to implementing word for word the amendments we proposed. We proposed these amendments in February or March 1989 prior to the Second Stage debate in this House. We felt it was correct, in the interests of ensuring that the correct by-laws were made with the necessary environmental protections, that the local authorities would be required to approve and publish them in draft form, rather than the by-laws instantly coming into force and the Minister having to amend them at a later stage. The local authority would be required to bring them to the notice of the people living in the area so that they could express views on them to the Minister for the Environment who would, within a statutorily defined period, make the by-laws or have them amended. That is what we are trying to achieve. It would make little sense to have a situation where a local authority would make by-laws which were instantly legally enforceable, commence a prosecution on foot of those by-laws and, pending prosecution, the Minister as a result of recommendations made about the defectiveness of by-laws amends them. Then there is the amended series of by-laws, perhaps removing the provision under which the prosecution was taking place, and a court is asked to determine the issue. There would be a constitutional problem because the power of the Minister to amend the by-laws at a time when prosecution is pending is doubtful in a constitutional context because of a whole series of court decisions which says that the Government or the legislator cannot interfere to amend laws in a way that would affect a pending prosecution before the courts.
The formula the Government initially set up under section 21, therefore, had a series of defects. One was that if the by-laws would not provide sufficient protections they would nevertheless instantly become law before the Minister could propose amendments to them to make them effective. It meant members of the local communities, farming and non-farming, who wished to see the by-laws firmed up in some way could spend some considerable time trying to get their point across to the Minister for the Environment before the by-laws would become effective. It would mean that by-laws that became law, that perhaps were completely unrealistic in the context of ordinary farming practice but which if they were changed would not reduce the environmental protection they afforded, could become part of the legal system. In the short term, it could have a dramatic impact on the ability of individual farmers to farm in ways that pose no environmental dangers but which have been made illegal under the by-laws.
We want to get the procedure right and under the Fine Gael amendments there would be a more logical process. The by-laws would be prepared in draft form, would go to the Department of the Environment and before they are approved would be published in the area. There would be a limited time opportunity to make representations as to changes necessary. Those changes would not necessarily water down the by-laws; they could result in them being firmed up substantially. After that, the by-laws would become law and prosecutions could take place under them. That seems to be a logical system.
I welcome the fact that the decision by Fine Gael to publish proposals along those lines stimulated the Government into producing their own set of proposals. I might remark that this is the longest contribution I will make because I want to ensure that we complete Committee Stage today and in the light of that, I will not be pressing Fine Gael amendments to the section. I will be formally withdrawing them, if necessary. We will accept the amendments the Government have tabled to this section which we believe will result in a more workable formula. The amended section will ensure that true legal protections will be in place without the problems I am concerned about arising. This will ensure that local communities will have an opportunity to have a say in regard to the by-laws. There will be a true local input to providing protection for local communities against water pollution. Local communities, in the making of by-laws, will have an opportunity to make an input.
I deeply regret the approach by Deputy Gilmore. It seems to be designed, in farming jargon, to spread the muck around. He seems to be suggesting that because my party, the main Opposition party, proposed changes to this measure, we are not as committed to resolving the problems of water pollution as other groups. I should like to tell the Deputy that before he was elected to the House we had been working on this problem as we knew the types of reform that were necessary. We want the Bill passed by the Dáil and the Seanad in its amended form before the House adjourns for the summer recess.
May I take it that amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32, in the name of Deputy Shatter, will be withdrawn?
All my amendments to section 21 will be withdrawn.
I welcome the fact that the Bill has returned to the House. Obviously, there is a commitment on all sides to assist in the early passage of the Bill. Like Deputy Gilmore, I want to avoid the introduction of a complicated system which would prolong the process of introducing by-laws.
The Government can assist in that regard by introducing a set of guidelines for local authorities at an early stage but local authorities have very limited staff to deal with water pollution. The spreading of slurry presents difficulties for local authorities and, in certain instances, for farmers. Under section 4 of the 1977 Act licences may be granted by local authorities to farmers spreading slurry on land that is over an aquifer, whether that aquifer is providing a public or private water supply. To my knowledge no licence has been granted by a local authority for the spreading of slurry.
The only practical method of disposing of slurry here is by spreading it on land. On the continent, where there are larger farming units, it is possible to treat it in slurry treatment plants. To my knowledge, there is one such treatment plant here, in Bandon, County Cork where the methane gas is used as a source to produce power and the solid residue is used as a fertiliser for shrubs and so on. It is not practical at present to think in terms of farmers, particularly small farmers, erecting treatment plants. It could be that an entire farm unit is on top of an aquifer. That occurs where there is a lot of limestone on a farm. It is almost certain that if land has limestone as a base rock there are aquifers present. We must remember that when ground water is polluted by nitrates, it can take up to 200 years for that water source to cleanse itself, even after the source of pollution has been removed.
The Bill does not deal with the problem of slurry. We must dispose of slurry in some way and that may create serious financial problems for farmers. Indeed, it may put some farmers out of business. In the UK, it is estimated that four million people are drinking water contaminated by nitrates and there is some evidence to suggest that that water causes stomach cancer. The decision to introduce by-laws is a move in the right direction but the Minister should prepare guidelines for local authorities to help them in that process. We should not forget that we have to deal with the problem of the disposal of slurry.
I should like to refer to a statement by Deputy Gilmore in the House on 14 March, as reported at column 239, volume 397 of the Official Report. Deputy Gilmore was referring to an amendment I had tabled to an earlier section and I should like to correct him. Deputy Gilmore stated:
On an earlier section in this Bill to which Deputy Garland had an amendment which would allow for a certain process of appeal to the Minister, Deputy Shatter made the point that that would lead to the politicisation of the legislation, and I agreed with him.
I should like to state that that was a misinterpretation of my amendment No. 9 but I am sure it was not intentional. What I said in regard to amendment No. 9 was that at the moment there was no appeal from a decision by An Bord Pleanála not to grant an oral hearing in a water pollution licence case. In that amendment I suggested that there should be an appeal against that decision to the Minister. That is an entirely different matter.
I agree with Deputies Gilmore and O'Shea that the original section was a reasonably good one. Of course, we must ask ourselves why the Minister and Deputy Shatter brought in amendments to change this section. It is quite obvious that these changes were brought in at the behest of the IFA. Any pressure group or business organisation is quite entitled to make representations to Deputies in this House — I have received many — and we should look at them very carefully. Nevertheless, I am most disappointed that in this case they have considerably weakened the Bill. I can only suggest — I do not like doing so — that they have given in to the big stick of the IFA. It is a sad day for the House and it is well that some of us are prepared to stand up and be counted.
I thank all the Deputies for their contributions to these amendments. In particular, I should like to thank Deputy Shatter for agreeing to withdraw his amendments in favour of the official amendment as this will lead to speedy deliberations on Committee Stage.
The reason the amendment is put forward in this form is that we want to have an effective, workable and fair by-law system. I did not negotiate this amendment with the IFA, nor did I discuss it with them. I can assure Deputy Gilmore that any documentation he has does not contain my amendment because nothing was agreed with the IFA.
This amendment, which puts a time limit on when the Minister must make a decision, is, in all the circumstances, workable and fair. Deputy Shatter referred to some of the difficulties and I should like to reiterate them. There would be enormous legal difficulties if the Bill was to stand in its present form. Any prosecution taken by a local authority after by-laws were established — and if those by-laws were subsequently annulled or amended by the Minister — would probably fall or would certainly be declared invalid. Even if they were not they would cause enormous legal difficulties and complications in their interpretation. We must have a clear, precise and fair system. I emphasise "fair" because if a local authority essentially represent only the rural area they might see a situation from a very different perspective than if they had to take on board a mixture of an urban and rural area. If, for example, in an exclusively rural local authority area where there was a small scattering of urban houses, the local rural community decided that they did not want any of the householders to have animal pets because they posed a risk to farm animals and decided to bring in a system of by-laws prohibiting anyone in the immediate vicinity from having pets, surely people would regard that as an unnecessary, drastic measure? Indeed, many rural communities might decide to do that. Those of us who have a small scattering of agricultural activities in our area often get such complaints, from farmers in particular, about the huge difficulties which arise as a result of people keeping domestic pets. I sympathise with them but the answer is not to simply ban them or to bring in a by-law which would totally prohibit them, they can be controlled in another way. The same applies in relation to farm activities. We must see the situation from a wider perspective and that is the job and the duty of the Department of the Environment and the Minister.
These by-laws, made by the local authorities, will stand if a decision is not made within six months. I was keen to ensure that a time limit would be put on the making of a ministerial decision, I know that because of time constraints, pressures and difficulties of one kind or another, it might often be the case that even if by-laws were made by local authorities, it could take a considerable time before they would be annulled, amended or confirmed. There is a realistic time limit.
In relation to the need and wish of farmers to see an unpolluted environment, I agree with Deputy Shatter's comments. The farming community often get a very bad press in this regard. A small number of farmers vigorously oppose any legislation in the area of the environment — and I am amazed that they do — but they should realise that their own interests are served by the strongest possible environmental measures. Our food industry, for example, which is worth £3.5 billion annually, accounts for one quarter of all industrial jobs and for 40 per cent of net export earnings at present. It is a major industry and, if it is to grow and develop, it will only do so in the context of a clean, green and unpolluted environment. Farmers in particular and those in the agri-business sector generally have a vested interest in seeing that our country is clean, green and unpolluted.
I agree with Deputy O'Shea that the spreading of slurry is a major difficulty. The new Environmental Protection Agency Bill which will be published shortly — the birth is imminent as the gestation period is almost over — will contain provision in relation to that matter. There will also be widespread provision for advice and guidelines in relation to matters of that kind to be conducted on behalf of or in conjunction with local authorities by the new agency. I agree with Deputy O'Shea that there is a need to issue guidelines to local authorities and that will be a matter for the Department if this Bill is passed before the Environmental Protection Agency is established. If not, the agency will have a role in issuing guidelines, direction and assistance in the making of these by-laws.
I do not wish to delay the debate. I am happy that the amendment is fair, equitable and practical in all the circumstances and that it will avoid many of the legal complications which could arise if the Bill stood in its present form. Deputy Gilmore asked about fish kills this year. I do not have the statistics at present as they are collected by the fisheries boards and local authorities and then sent to the fisheries research centre of the Department of the Marine. However, I undertake to have my officials contact the centre this afternoon, or as soon as possible, to get the latest statistics and, if I get them before Committee Stage is completed, I will mention them. If not, I will make them available to Deputy Gilmore and the other spokespersons if they are interested.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 31 to 34, inclusive, not moved.
Amendment No. 35, in the name of the Minister, was discussed earlier with No. 30.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 20, lines 45 to 51 and in page 21, lines 1 to 27, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following:
"(4) Where a local authority proposes to make bye-laws under paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2)—
(a) it shall publish notice of the proposal, of the area to which the proposed bye-laws will apply and of the place where and period during which copies of the proposed bye-laws may be inspected and purchased in at least one newspaper circulating in that area,
(b) the notice published pursuant to paragraph (a) shall contain a statement to the effect that any person aggrieved by the proposed bye-laws may make representations in writing to the Minister in relation to them during the period specified in the notice,
(c) it shall deposit copies of the proposed bye-laws at its offices, and they shall be made available there for inspection and purchase by members of the public at all reasonable times during the period specified in the notice under paragraph (a),
(d) any person aggrieved by the proposed bye-laws may make representations in writing to the Minister in relation to them during such period as may be specified in the notice (not being less than 30 days from the latest date on which the notice is published pursuant to paragraph (a)),
(e) the Minister shall consider any representations duly made under paragraph (d) before deciding whether to give or refuse to give his approval to the proposed bye-laws,
(f) the Minister may direct the authority to make specified amendments to the proposed bye-laws and, if he does so, paragraphs (a) to (e) shall be deemed to have been complied with in relation to the bye-laws as amended in accordance with the direction,
(g) if, upon the expiration of the period of 6 months from the latest date upon which representations may be made to the Minister under paragraph (d) in relation to the proposed bye-laws, the Minister has not given a decision under paragraph (e) and has not given a direction in relation to them under paragraph (f), the Minister shall be deemed to have given his approval to the proposed bye-laws under paragraph (e),
(h) the bye-laws shall, as soon as may be after they are made, be published in Iris Oifigiúil and notice of their making, of the area to which they apply and of the place where copies of them may be purchased or inspected shall be published in at least one newspaper circulating in the area to which they relate.”.
I spoke on this amendment during my last contribution. It will allow for a more workable, practical and efficient way of implementing by-laws.
I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Department have taken on board our worries and difficulties in regard to the workability of the section as originally drafted. They have also addressed our concern that the section may not have been as effective as it should be in the context of by-laws without being dealt with in this way.
It is regrettable that not only Deputy Gilmore but also Deputy Garland — who I think should know better — should be hung up on conspiracy theories about the Fine Gael Party; the Government parties can take care of themselves without the Fine Gael Party trying to water down measures in any way. In the context of all of the parties in this House — and indeed well before Deputy Garland's election — we have been in the forefront of seeking major reforms of environmental legislation. To be quite frank about it, Deputy Garland's contributions to debates on environmental matters since he came into this House have been somewhat pale in comparison with those of Members of my own party or, in fairness, with those of Members of the Labour and The Workers' Parties. Deputy Garland should be a little cautious in over-personalising his criticisms. I welcome the Minister's amendment to this section.
I do not wish to prolong the debate but I do wish to place on record my opposition to amendment No. 35 for the reasons I indicated earlier.
I might refer to a couple of earlier comments by Deputy Shatter. I do agree with him that the vast majority of our farmers have a concern about the environment, and do take as much care as they possibly can to protect it. However, there is a difficulty, that, by and large, agricultural activity is not covered by planning legislation. The only way in which agricultural activity can be controlled is by the making of the kinds of by-laws provided for in this Bill. To listen to Deputy Shatter one would think that by-laws were being written by officials sitting in town and county halls who are remote from agricultural activity. There are many farmers, and many members of the IFA — when they lobbied for changes to be effected in this section — who probably thought likewise. Of course the reality is that by-laws are made by elected members of local authorities. In any agricultural area it is safe to assume that a local authority would very often be composed of members of the farming community, many of whom may be members of Deputy Shatter's party. Therefore, far from some sinister process taking place in an office in a county hall, the making of by-laws is a democratic process.
The difficulty with which we are faced here is that, by the time a local authority will have made the by-laws, will have awaited Ministerial approval and now will have awaited a further six months within which an appeal can be lodged, the agricultural activity which the by-laws may have been intended to address may already have taken place and the pollution occurred. If the by-laws were intended to deal with, say, the spreading of a particular kind of fertiliser or pesticide at a particular time, that would be well and truly done before the by-laws could be made and any appeal heard.
We have already had experience of legislation in respect of which individuals or interests have a right to appeal. For example, the Air Pollution Act was frustrated by the exercise of such appeals. It is not a case of a community deciding to appeal. All it takes is one individual farmer — who may well be the greatest polluter in a given area — to lodge an appeal, and then there elapses a period of six months within which the appeal process has to be completed.
I find the Minister's amendment strange, particularly given that her Department's research environmental unit published a booklet some time ago on farm waste and pollution which addressed the very problem about which I am speaking, this kind of continuous pollution arising from particular kinds of activity. That booklet suggested an answer to the problem. It was said that the Government were taking action on the matter, more recently by an amending Bill which, inter alia, proposes greatly increased penalties against those causing water pollution and additional powers for local authorities in dealing with pollution risks arising from agricultural activities. The Minister's amendment effectively undermines what the environmental research unit of her Department recommend as the solution to this problem.
I am opposing the Minister's amendment for the reasons outlined by Deputy Gilmore and for other reasons. In reply to Deputy Shatter I might say I did not seek to personalise this debate or to attack Deputy Shatter. I do not think it is of any interest to this House what I think of Deputy Shatter. Equally I do not think it is of interest to this House what Deputy Shatter thinks of me.
Things are warming up in Dublin South.
There is a revision of constituencies afoot so they might be separated.
The Minister of State is not supposed to know what will be decided.
I do not, I hasten to add, before I am accused of something else. I fail to understand Deputy Garland's logic because, in the discussion we had a few minutes ago, he made a very strong case for the whole notion of having an appeals system. In an earlier part of the Committee Stage debate he was concerned that, when An Bord Pleanála refused an oral hearing on a water pollution licence, an appeal could be made to the Minister because he believed people had a right to appeal. If that logic is to be applied to this case he thinks everybody should have the right to appeal provided they are of the environmentalist persuasion but, if it is a farmer — as Deputy Gilmore said, even one farmer — that same right does not seem to exist. I do not understand the logic of that.
I believe that the amendment we propose is workable and will be effective. As Deputy Gilmore suggested, it would not be in contravention of the ERU of my Department; that is total rubbish. It does not prevent local authorities from making by-laws. It simply ensures that the system of making by-laws is effective and workable. I do not think any local authority would thank us if they were to make by-laws, initiate prosecutions, and subsequently to involve themselves in long legal disputes because a Minister amended, annulled, or in some way changed, the by-laws originally made.
I believe the amendment will be seen to be effective. Even in advance of the passage of this Bill local authorities can be examining their areas to ascertain where they might initiate the making of by-laws. Six months after the passage of this Bill, if particular local authorities so wish, they can make or confirm by-laws. That is not unreasonable since they did not have that provision heretofore. To ask them to wait a further six months after the passage of the Bill does not constitute an unreasonable delay in all the circumstances.
May I put a brief request to the Minister? Clearly there are parts of the country in which such by-laws should be put in place. Clearly this Bill — all being well — will be enacted in the course of this session. I would request that the Minister's Department circularise local authorities to advise them before the summer period — when local authorities will go into recess for a couple of months — that their managements should bring before their local authorities a proposal for the making of by-laws to ascertain the views of local members on whether by-laws should be made under this provision. This would be to ensure that, in those areas of the country where they are required, by-laws could be prepared over the summer months and put in place speedily when needed. Very often what happens, after the passage of a Bill, is that it takes a number of months for the Department to circulate local authorities. If those local authorities are under staffed and over-worked, they do not get round to ascertaining what new obligations are imposed on them by the relevant legislation. I make that by way of a constructive suggestion to ensure that, where by-laws are needed, they are put in place as soon as possible.
That is a good suggestion I will certainly pursue.
I would again like to refer to my suggestion of introducing guidelines to advise local authorities. The Minister reacted positively towards this suggestion but she has said the guidelines may await the coming into being of the Environmental Protection Agency. I suggest that is neither desirable nor necessary and I ask that she give an assurance that the guidelines will be with the local authorities at the same time as management are advised of the new legislation coming into operation.
I think the Deputy has misunderstood me. What I said was that obviously this would be a role for the Environmental Protection Agency when it is up and running. In advance of that, and when the Bill comes into force we may well decide to issue guidelines from the Department. I do not know if it is practical to do this at the same time as circularise them with details of the Bill as Deputy Shatter has suggested. However, I will certainly look into the possibility of doing so as quickly as possible.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 36 to 38, inclusive, not moved.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 22, subsection (5) (b), line 25, after "discharge" to insert "to the drain concerned".
I do not think there is any need for me to tell Deputies this is a minor drafting amendment and I hope it will be acceptable to the House.
This is to ensure that the section does not go down the drain.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 22, subsection (5) (b), lines 29 and 30, to delete "the drain referred to in paragraph (a) became a sewer" and substitute "such commencement".
This again is a minor drafting change.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 22, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following subsection:
"(7) A sanitary authority may by order amend or revoke an order made by it under this section.".
This amendment will give a sanitary authority further power to amend or to revoke an order made by it for the purpose of declaring a combined drain to be a sewer. This is a necessary provision to cater for unforeseen developments at the time of the making of the order and to take account of changing practices in relation to industrial effluent discharges to the combined drain in question. The provision could be availed of to extend controls to a new industry discharging effluent to a different part of the combined drain, which was not declared to be a sewer under the original order or to revoke an order in the event of industry ceasing to discharge to the combined drain.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 22, lines 42 to 46, to delete subsection (7) and substitute the following:
"(7) In this section `sewage effluent' does not include domestic sewage being discharged to a combined drain and from the combined drain to a sewer.".
This amendment caters for a consequential change arising from the transfer of the definition of combined drain from section 22 of the Bill to section 2. It might be noted that the purpose of having a definition of "sewage effluent" which will apply to section 22 is to ensure there will be no change in the present licensing requirements of the 1977 Act in relation to domestic sewage which discharges eventually to a sanitary authority sewer simply because a combined drain was declared to be a sewer. At present no licence is required for domestic sewage discharges to a sewer but a licence is needed where the discharge is made directly to waters. The definition being included in section 22 will ensure that domestic effluent discharged to a combined drain which subsequently connects to a sewer will similarly not require a licence. Where the discharge goes via the drain to waters, the necessary level of protection can be ensured under the licensing system operated under section 4 of the 1977 Act.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 22, between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following subsection:
"(8) An order under subsection (1) may relate to a specified part only of a specified combined drain and references in the preceding subsections of this section to a combined drain shall be construed accordingly.".
Amendment No. 43 will introduce an element of flexibility in relation to the length of the combined drain which is to become a sewer. In some situations it may be appropriate to make an order in respect of the entire combined drain, while in others an order relating to a specified part of the drain may be sufficient to achieve the intended controls on the effluent discharges. There may also be circumstances in which it is desirable to exercise control over individual industrial discharges to a combined drain which connects to a private effluent treatment works and to maintain the present licensing controls under section 16 (4) of the 1977 Act on the discharge from the treatment works when it goes to waters or to a sewer. This amendment will make such controls possible where the sanitary authority considers them appropriate.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 23.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 22, subsection (1), lines 47 and 48, to delete ", this Act or the Act of 1959" and substitute "or this Act".
Amendment No. 44 is intended to rectify an error in drafting. The provisions of section 23 of the Bill are already applicable to offences under the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, by virtue of section 311 of that Act.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 22, subsection (1), line 52, and in page 23, line 1, to delete ", as well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of that" and substitute "shall also be guilty of an".
Amendment No. 45 caters for a minor drafting point.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Amendment No. 46 in the names of Deputies Quinn and O'Shea was discussed earlier with amendment No. 10.
I will withdraw amendments Nos. 46 to 48, inclusive, on the understanding of an assurance given by the Minister that she will look at minimum fines in relation to pollution offences.
Amendments Nos. 46 to 48, inclusive, not moved.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Here again we come to amendments in the names of the same Deputies, Deputies Quinn and O'Shea. Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 were discussed with amendment No. 10.
The amendments are not being moved.
Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.
There are further amendments to the section in the names of the Minister and Deputy Gilmore.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 23, lines 35 to 39, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) It shall be a defence to a charge of committing an offence under the said section 171 for the accused to prove that he took all reasonable care to prevent the falling into waters to which the charge relates by providing, maintaining, using, operating and supervising facilities, or by employing practices or methods of operation, that, having regard to all the circumstances, were suitable for the purpose of such prevention.".
This amendment has already been discussed with amendment No. 3.
I thought we had discussed these amendments.
We have already discussed this amendment. It was consequential on earlier amendments.
They were discussed but a question can be put on them now.
I would like a question to be put on them.
On amendment No. 51?
On Amendment No. 51a. I was seeking——
I must take the amendments seriatim. I must deal first with No. 51 in the name of the Minister.
Unless I misunderstood, when we dealt with amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 earlier, we also dealt with this amendment which was consequential on those amendments. It was discussed and accepted at that time. I would ask for your guidance in relation to that matter.
It is clear that if amendment No. 51 is carried, No. 51a in the names of Deputy Gilmore and Deputy Garland cannot be moved. Therefore, we have to dispose of the Minister's amendment now.
I appreciate there was a discussion on this issue previously and I do not want to reopen it, but I would simply like to explain why I am opposed to the Minister's amendment. The amendment seeks to introduce what is known as the good defence provision to section 171 of the Fisheries Act, 1959. That Act is the main instrument which is relied upon by the regional fisheries boards in taking prosecutions for water pollution, in some cases against local authorities. The reason regional fisheries boards rely on this Act is that they find that under the 1977 Act, which contains this good defence provision, it is too difficult to secure prosecutions against those committing water pollution offences. I am informed that each of the regional fisheries boards would take between ten and 50 prosecutions per year under section 171 of the Fisheries Act, 1959. I am further informed that it is difficult to secure a conviction under section 171 as it stands. Cases can often be complicated, there can often be difficulties establishing who is the owner of the land or the property concerned, and there is often difficulty in proving the evidence that has been collected.
If the Minister's amendment is passed and if section 25 (2) remains in this Bill, the regional fisheries boards will not be able to pursue prosecutions with the same degree of effect as they have been doing under section 171 of the 1959 Act. Let me give an example. We know of cases at present where regional fisheries boards bring local authorities to court as a result of the discharge of sewage into rivers and that they have secured convictions against local authorities for that reason. If this subsection goes into section 25, in practice regional fisheries boards will no longer be able to secure such convictions. In other words, the local authority will be able to offer as a defence the fact that they do not have the money to carry out the work, that they have a scheme prepared or whatever. It would render the Fisheries Act, 1959, ineffective.
I have received correspondence on this matter from some of the regional fisheries boards, as I am sure have other Deputies. For example, I have received correspondence from the Western Regional Fisheries Board and, with your indulgence, I would like to quote from it. It states:
At a recent Board Meeting, The Western Regional Fisheries Board expressed serious reservations regarding some provisions of the Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Bill, 1989.
In particular the Board expressed concern at the amendment to Section 171 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, which was put down by the Minister for the Environment.
Heretofore, under Section 171 (i) (b) of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, it was an offence to throw, empty, permit or cause to fall into any waters any deleterious matter. Under the amendment, the Board feels that it will be more difficult to prevent the discharge of deleterious matter into waters.
Some years ago, there were moves to have Sections 171 and 172 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, repealed. This was strenuously opposed by fishery boards and angling interests.
The Board can indicate cases where, under the amendment put down by the Minister for the Environment, it would be possible for polluters to prove a good defence and so avoid conviction.
I have received further correspondence from another board which point out that since the 1977 Act came into effect there has not been a single case taken on indictment, and the reason is that any case referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions was returned on the grounds of the defence provisions of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977. In other words, the good defence clause which is built into the 1977 Act, and which the Minister is now proposing to extend to the 1959 Act, has been used quite successfully in preventing cases on indictment being taken under the 1977 Act and will, in the opinion of the regional fisheries boards, render ineffective the 1959 Act and their powers to take action under that Act.
It is interesting that the regional fisheries boards, even though they have had available to them the 1977 Act, have tended to rely on the 1959 Act when taking prosecutions because that Act did not include the good defence clause. What the Minister is doing is building into the 1959 Act the good defence provision, which is in the 1977 Act, which local authority officers, who are responsible for this area, and the regional fisheries boards will tell you is hindering the making of prosecutions. I am opposed to the Minister's amendment and to subsection (2) of section 25.
Deputy Shatter.
I think I am next to speak as I am the second proposer of amendment No. 51a. Is that not so?
Acting Chairman
I have called Deputy Shatter. I will call the Deputy next.
I would like to suggest means of dealing with this problem. I have received similar correspondence to that received by Deputy Gilmore. It seems the fisheries boards are concerned about this section. It is clear that the approach adopted in the Bill is to provide a degree of uniformity between the local government water pollution legislation and the Fisheries Acts. The Minister's amendment is in line with what we discussed in the earlier section — to continue the uniformity to move away from what I thought, and I think all sides of the House agree, was the wrong approach in the context of the defence provision. We now have another problem. The fisheries boards are very concerned, as Deputy Gilmore said, about prosecuting local authorities in certain circumstances which can be quite different from cases where prosecutions are brought against a corporate body or a private individual in the context of pollution.
It was only in the last week to ten days that these problems were voiced by the fisheries boards — I presume Deputy Gilmore proposed a late amendment in response to those representations. I took the view that because we discussed this matter in some detail the last day, we probably would not be allowed rerun the debate today. In the light of the worries that have been expressed by the fisheries boards, would the Minister have discussions with them with a view to coming back to the House on Report Stage to ensure that we deal correctly with this provision as it operates under the Fisheries Acts? The worst of all worlds would be for the House to divide on this amendment when it is only a week or ten days since the fisheries boards expressed their worries. To adopt an approach that may not be right would prevent us from dealing with the matter on Report Stage. That would be the worst of all worlds and it could give rise to the worst scenario. It may be very well when the Bill returns to the Seanad that the Minister will take the view that she needs to address this issue. Instead of this Bill finishing in this term we may have the Seanad making a further amendment and returning it to this House. Strictly speaking, procedurally, the Seanad is only supposed to deal with amendments made in this House.
I suggest to the Minister and also to Deputy Gilmore that there is need to ensure that the worries expressed by the fisheries boards are resolved. There has been very little focus so far in the debate on this Bill on the fisheries boards and their problems. We have been dealing with local authorities and the general problem of water pollution, both industrial and agricultural. We have only briefly addressed the problems which local authorities create from time to time and only recently we had another instance of a local authority being successfully prosecuted. I invite the Minister to tell the House that in regard to this provision she will come back to it on Report Stage in the context of discussions with the fisheries boards. I assume that the circular letter which I and Deputy Gilmore received was also circulated to the Minister. If she did not get a copy — it is clear she should have received a copy — I, and I am sure Deputy Gilmore, would be happy to furnish her with one. In the interests of resolving this issue that would be a constructive way of proceeding rather than dividing on something today, of which the Minister has not been informed, and possibly making the wrong decisions simply because of numbers on either side of this House in the sense of numbers of Members.
If the Minister does not withdraw her amendment I will be pressing my amendment very strongly. This is another example of giving in to the vested interests. It is nonsense for this Government to talk about doubling tourist numbers in the next five years when the best we can do in the way of water pollution legislation is this watered-down Bill. This is another example of it. I am glad at this stage that Deputy Shatter has, at least, made some effort to oppose the sections of this Bill because up to now it has been a very cosy debate between the two major parties in this House who are responding to the lobbies and the interest groups. We all know who they are.
I thought Deputy Garland was not personalising the debate.
It is good that the Deputy is showing some backbone at this stage. Perhaps the Tallaght Strategy has been abandoned after all. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this matter and to withdraw her amendment.
First, I am not in a position to withdraw the amendment because there is no amendment to withdraw. What we are discussing has actually been agreed and was consequential on earlier amendments. Therefore, there is nothing to vote on. However, that is a matter for the Chair's guidance later.
I want to emphasise that I have not received the correspondence which the other Deputies seem to have received. It is strange since this Bill was published in January 1989, or thereabouts, that it should take until now for the fisheries boards to make their representations. These provisions of the Bill were put in at the request of the Department of the Marine; the parent Department of the fisheries boards. However, I would be concerned about the reservations expressed by the fisheries boards. It is not my wish in any way to lessen the powers they have or to avoid anyone, regardless of who has been prosecuted, under our water pollution legislation. I will examine the reservations — when I receive a copy of them — of the fisheries boards and perhaps we can discuss it again on Report Stage. The matter we are discussing is part of the Bill as passed by the Seanad. All we did earlier was to amend it somewhat. The provisions of the Fisheries Act, 1980, were already referred to in section 25 of the original Bill which was passed by the Seanad. So it was not a new amendment introduced on Committee Stage but rather one we simply changed somewhat.
I thank Deputies for their comments. In view of the fact that we will not have a vote as there is nothing to withdraw, I will examine the reservations of the fisheries boards' officers and will refer to it again on Report Stage.
I am absolutely astonished at what the Minister has said that this section is going into the Bill at the request of the Department of the Marine. While the circular letters we have received have only been issued in the past ten days or so, I certainly had received representations previously from some of the regional fisheries boards. It was made very clear to me that they had routed representations through the Central Fisheries Board and on to their parent Department that the defence provision that exists in the 1977 Act should not be extended to the 1959 Act as subsection (2) of section 25 is seeking to do. I am absolutely astonished to learn that this is being done at the request of the Department of the Marine. The regional fisheries boards are absolutely opposed to this. They make the point very clear that if section 25 remains as it is in this Bill, the regional fisheries boards will not be able to prosecute local authorities or other people who are polluting our waters because they will be able to get out from under the prosecution by using the defence clause in the same way as they would under the provisions of the 1977 Act. After all the ballyhoo about water pollution we will end up with a Bill which the regional fisheries boards, who have been the most vigorous in pursuing prosecutions, tell us is not enforceable.
I do not recall a vote being taken on this issue at an earlier stage. I agree with Deputy Shatter that if the Minister gives an assurance that the issue of whether the defence clause should be extended to section 171 of the 1959 Act will be looked at between now and Report Stage in the light of what the regional fisheries boards have said, then I will not press the matter. I did not think the Minister was absolutely categoric in her reply.
I wish to clarify something. It seems to me that in the context of the letter we received that there was a little confusion on the part of the fisheries boards. I think the Minister is confused as well and this might afford her an opportunity for some clarification. We have in the Bill as it stands section 25 and subsection (2) which is euphemistically referred to as the good defence clause and we have the Minister's amendment No. 51 which seeks to replace the existing subsection (2) with the new subsection (2) which is along the lines of what we agreed earlier in the Bill. We have the proposal that subsection (2) should be deleted altogether. It would seem that we could very well today vote on something. The essence of it is not whether the Minister's subsection (2) or the existing subsection (2) is the better subsection but rather if we need subsection (2) at all or is there a problem in the fisheries legislation with it.
The circular letter seemed to address section 25 (2) of the Bill and not amendment No. 51 in the name of the Minister. Although I suspect they do not have a different view, I do not know whether the fisheries boards have a view more or less favourable to the Minister's amendment to section 25 (2). It may be that they regard the Minister's amendment as being better but probably would prefer if that subsection was not in the Fisheries Act.
The Minister is wrong when she says that we cannot have a vote today. If we want to have a vote today we can because the amendment seeks to amend the Fisheries Act whereas the previous amendment was to the Bill. Having regard to the fact that the fisheries boards wrote to all the Opposition spokespersons, in fairness it was remiss of them not to write to the Minister. It is quite obvious that the points they made to us should also have been made to the Minister. Deputy Gilmore indicated that he has received representations about this matter from the fisheries boards but the first time they brought it to my attention was when they issued the circular letter.
In order to bring back the amendment on Report Stage procedurally we have to have this discussion today, but I suggest that the Minister put in abeyance her amendment and retable it on Report Stage and that we, on this side of the House, put in abeyance the possibility of a vote against subsection (2) to enable her to have some contact with the fisheries boards. I suggest that if the Department of the Marine are not communicating the correct detailed information to her, she might make direct contact with the fisheries boards. I do not know whether the niceties of governmental responsibilities preclude her from doing so, but I put it to her that if the Bill goes wrong it is the Minister for the Environment or the Minister of State at that Department, and not the Minister for the Marine, who will be held responsible. Therefore, in order to be helpful to the Minister and as we in the Fine Gael Party wish to ensure that the Bill is effective and works, I suggest that she would do no damage to her proposal or to the Bill if she were to leave in abeyance her proposed amendment until Report Stage and we on this side of the House leave in abeyance a possible vote against subsection (2) until Report Stage.
I am not interested in making a political point where Deputies on this side of the House would troop through one lobby and the Government Deputies would troop through the other lobby with the Minister getting her amendment through, but when prosecutions go wrong in two years' time no doubt some bright person on this side of the House will stand up and harangue the Minister and say it was all her fault. That would mean that the right legislation was not in place. I am interested in having the right legislation in place and not in having a vote today as this would preclude us from dealing with it on Report Stage.
Other than the issue of fines there is very little of substance left over for Report Stage. Therefore, I invite the Minister to deal with the matter in this way so that we can come back to this amendment on Report Stage. I also urge her to talk directly to the fisheries boards and not take the circuitous route with the boards communicating with the Department of the Marine who, in turn, will vet the communication and pass on their own distilled version to the Minister.
Obviously, we could have a vote on the section but as I understand it — and I am subject to the guidance of the Chair — this amendment is consequential on a previous one and therefore cannot be voted on. I have no objection to meeting the fisheries boards. I understand communication was made with them by way of a telephone call during the past few weeks. I am interested in pursuing their reservations because I am not interested in weakening, nor would I be happy to weaken in any way, the powers they already have.
We have to understand that it will not be impossible for them to bring a prosecution or to get a conviction. The good defence does not prevent someone being prosecuted. What it simply does is allow the people concerned to argue, to the satisfaction of the court that they have put the appropriate facilities in place, that they have used them but could not have foreseen that pollution would occur as a result of their activities. I believe that that good defence will be interpreted by the courts in a reasonable and fair manner, but that does not mean that people cannot be prosecuted or convicted in the event of pollution occurring. It simply means that if they put the appropriate facilities in place, use them appropriately and take all the necessary steps to avoid water pollution, but pollution occurs as a result of an accident, they would not be convicted as that would not be fair.
However, in order to be helpful I will look at the reservations of the fisheries boards as they are the people who will have to implement the law. They have been doing a very effective job in recent years. Their job is a difficult one and, unfortunately, they have to deal with an enormous number of fish kills. I would like to examine thoroughly their reservations and come back at a later stage if I feel this is necessary.
Is the Minister withdrawing her amendment?
I have no amendment to withdraw.
Amendment No. 51 is in the name of the Minister.
That has already been agreed to.
It has not been agreed. I have before me the Official Report of 28 February and, if I may, I will quote from it. The Minister stated at column 1127:
Amendment No. 51 was consequential on the amendment I moved earlier. May I ask if that amendment is agreed to?
The Ceann Comhairle stated in reply: "That can be decided upon when we reach amendment No. 51". Therefore, the amendment has not been agreed.
If that is the case, and it is a matter for the Chair, I intend to put the amendment at this stage.
Acting Chairman
It is my understanding that the amendment was discussed with amendment No. 3 and there can be a vote on it.
We are trying to be helpful. No one is trying to achieve a concealed political victory or rush out of the House to say to the press that the Opposition have achieved a major victory. What we are trying to say to the Minister is that there is a problem here. In fairness to the Minister, the fisheries boards have been very late in articulating this problem but, in fairness to them, they articulated it before we dealt with the section. As the Acting Chairman said, we can have a vote on the amendment. If there is a vote we will either vote in favour or against subsection (2). It is my view that the Minister is not in a position to assert that she is dealing with this matter correctly. I fear that if we vote on the matter now, between now and Report Stage the Minister may discover that some of the worries expressed on this side of the House are correct but because a vote had been taken nothing could be done about it on Report Stage. If the Minister or anyone on this side of the House tables an amendment the Ceann Comhairle will tell us that the matter was dealt with on Committee Stage and cannot be dealt with on Report Stage.
If the Minister is anxious to insert the new version of subsection (2) in the Bill she should leave it as a proposal and we should not have a vote on it now. This would enable her to have discussions with the fisheries boards. Let us assume for a moment that the fisheries boards are not agreeable to the new formulation and the Minister decides for whatever reason they are wrong in the case they are making, she can table the amendment on Report Stage when a vote can be taken on it. She would have the opportunity on Report Stage to report to the House on the nature of discussions she had with the fisheries boards and advise the House why they are wrong. It would then be a matter for us to make judgment.
The Minister would do no damage to her approach if she postpones a vote on the subsection until Report Stage but she would do damage if she puts it to a vote now. I am assuming that there are enough Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats Members around the House to ensure that she wins the vote, but if the Minister discovers she is wrong where would we be?
It has taken a year and a half to get it enacted since it was first published. I do not envisage another Water Pollution Bill coming before this House for at least another five years and if we get it wrong we will be stuck with this mistake for five years. There is no loss of face or political point scoring when I ask the Minister to ease our position. I accept that the fisheries boards have been late in voicing their objections but I personally fail to understand why, in particular, the Western Regional Fisheries Board managed to express a view in a circular letter to all of us on this side of the House and the Minister did not receive a copy of their letter. Perhaps there is a copy languishing in the Department of the Marine. Perhaps the senior Minister has a copy of it and in the ways of bureaucracy it has not come through the system in time for today's debate.
All I am suggesting is that we do not divide the House on something we may look back on in some years' time as crucial in the context of ensuring not only that this legislation works in reducing water pollution but also that we do not diminish powers the fisheries boards have operated successfully in their own area since 1959.
We have already made amendments to the good defence clause of the original Bill as passed by the Seanad. Amendment No. 51 applies the same good defence provisions to the Water Pollution Bill as apply to the Fisheries Act and I think that is fair.
If the Deputies want me to examine the possibility of removing a good defence altogether from the Fisheries Act, that is a completely different case. Section 25 of the Bill as passed by the Seanad, the Bill we now have already, applies a good defence clause to the Fisheries Act, so it is not a question of having no good defence. That has already been in the Bill and is already passed and I do not think Deputies are querying that. If we are to have good defence provisions it is fair that we have the same provisions in both measures; otherwise I foresee many difficulties. However, I want to be helpful and I will hold over the amendment until the next Stage so that I can examine fully the queries and difficulties and see what the most effective way of pursuing this matter is.
I welcome that because I was going to add to what Deputy Shatter has said. The issue here is not whether the wording of the good defence clause is going to be as it was in the original Bill or in the revised version now proposed by the Minister, but whether the good defence clause should apply at all to the 1959 Act.
It really does.
I was advised by the Ceann Comhairle's office that if the Minister's amendment was put and passed then my amendment to delete subsection (2) could not be proposed. Therefore, I welcome the Minister's holding over of her amendment until Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 51 a not moved.
Section 25 agreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27.
I move amendment No. 51b:
In page 24, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following paragraph:
"(d) (i) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 10 (4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, summary proceedings for an offence under the Principal Act, this Act or section 171 or 172 of the Act of 1959, may be commenced at any time within 6 months from the date on which evidence sufficient, in the opinion of the person by whom the proceedings are initiated, to justify the proceedings comes to such person's knowledge:
Provided that no such proceedings shall be initiated later than 5 years from the date on which the offence concerned was committed.
(ii) For the purposes of this paragraph, a certificate signed by or on behalf of the person initiating the proceedings specifying the date or dates on which evidence relating to the offence concerned came to his knowledge shall be prima facie evidence of such date or dates and in any legal proceedings a document purporting to be a certificate under this paragraph and to be so signed shall be deemed to be so signed and shall be admitted as evidence without proof of the signature of the person purporting to sign the certificate, unless the contrary is shown.”.
This amendment provides for an extended time limit for prosecution of summary offences where evidence of offence only comes to light some time after the event. At present, the time limit for initiating summary proceedings is six months, in all cases. This six month limit will continue to apply to the vast majority of offences, most of which are detected within a short period of the incident. However, in certain types of cases, the pollution may not be detected for some time. An example of the type of case involved might be where ground water was being polluted by agricultural effluent. In this type of incident, evidence of the offence might only come to light months or years later.
This amendment will provide that the six month time limit will only begin to run from the time the evidence is discovered, enabling a summary prosecution to be taken, even though more than six months may have been passed since the offence was committed.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 51c:
In page 24, before section 28, to insert the following new section:
"28.—Where a person is convicted of an offence under the Principal Act, this Act or sections 171 or 172 of the Act of 1959 committed after the commencement of this section, the court shall, unless it is satisfied that there are special and substantial reasons for not so doing, order the person to pay to any local authority, sanitary authority or regional board concerned the costs and expenses, measured by the court, reasonably incurred by the authority or board in relation to the investigation, detection and prosecution of the offence, including costs incurred in the taking of samples, the carrying out of tests, examinations and analyses and in respect of the remuneration and other expenses of employees, consultants and advisers."
The purpose of this amendment is to allow local authorities, sanitary authorities and regional fisheries boards to recover the costs and expenses reasonably incurred by them in preparing for all prosecutions, whether summary prosecutions taken by those authorities or boards themselves, or prosecutions on indictment taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
As the section stands at present, it provides only for the recovery of costs and expenses incurred by these authorities when prosecuting summary offences. It is considered desirable to widen the provision to provide for recovery from the person or body convicted of the offence of the costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the local or sanitary authority or regional board in preparing for prosecutions on indictment.
The section should facilitate, and act as an incentive to, the enforcement of water pollution control legislation, as local and sanitary authorities and fisheries boards, who are experiencing financial difficulties, need no longer be constrained by considerations relating to the costs of actions and their overall financial situation.
Costs will be recoverable from the person convicted of a pollution offence. The approach is in line with the-polluter-pays principle which we all have been advocating for some time.
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Acceptance of this amendment involves the deletion of section 28.
Section 28 deleted.
Section 29 agreed to.
SECTION 30.
Question proposed: "That section 30 stand part of the Bill."
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 52 has been ruled out of order.
Sir, could you explain why that amendment has been ruled out of order? It is an amendment relating to section 2 of the Bill in which the Government seek to abolish the Water Pollution Advisory Council. It seems quite extraordinary that in legislation designed to tackle the problems of water pollution a provision stuck ambiguously into the second last section of the Bill and which seeks in effect to take out the Water Pollution Advisory Council, a body the senior Minister, Deputy Flynn, definitely had no love for, should be ruled out of order. It is the first time this House has had any opportunity to deal with whether we should keep in place the Water Pollution Advisory Council. It seems to be taking away from the legislative function of this House to deny Members an opportunity to vote on the issue of whether the Water Pollution Advisory Council should be kept in place.
Acting Chairman
It is out of order because it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
In the context of that I understand the technical reasons for repealing other parts of section 30. If we cannot discuss the amendment under which Fine Gael is seeking to preserve in being the Water Pollution Advisory Council I will address the issue in the context of the section. We recognise that for technical reasons it may be necessary to have the other provisions contained in this section, but under that section the Government seek to abolish the Water Pollution Advisory Council. We intend to vote against the section for that very reason.
Section 2 of the original Act requires the Minister for the Environment, following consultation with other interested Ministers, to establish by order a Water Pollution Advisory Council to advise on water pollution matters generally. The council, either of its own volition or at the Minister's request, may make recommendations to the Minister on any matter relating to his functions or responsibilities concerning water pollution control and can advise on any matter referred to it by the Minister. The section requires the Minister to keep the council informed of matters relating to the control of water pollution which are in his opinion likely to assist the council in performing its functions and requires the council to make an annual report to the Minister and, even more importantly, an annual report must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
Since the 1977 Act we have had a Water Pollution Advisory Council in place. Different people were appointed from time to time and it finished its term of office immediately prior to the 1987 general election. When the new Fianna Fáil Government came into office they surreptitiously sought to remove the Water Pollution Advisory Council from the exercise of its functions. The Minister for the Environment has an extraordinarily unexplained animosity to independent environmental organisations.
In his first year in office he effectively abolished the Water Pollution Advisory Council by not appointing members to it, contrary to his statutory duty. He was also responsible for taking out of operation An Foras Forbartha. This Government have also failed to appoint members to the Wildlife Advisory Council. The Fianna Fáil Government in their first year in office took out of operation a whole series of independent environmental bodies, either by way of statutory provision or executive decision. One would have expected something different from this new Coalition, where the senior Minister has this unconcealed and unexplained animosity to all independent environment agencies previously established by statute. We know the senior Minister does not like these bodies because of the powers they have, in this case the power to present an annual report to the Houses of the Oireachtas with regard to water pollution.
The Oireachtas was properly informed if the legislation was not right or was not being enforced by Government agencies or if local authorities or fisheries boards lacked the necessary resources to enforce the legislation. The Water Pollution Advisory Council was no paper tiger. Apart from its annual report it produced a whole series of excellent reports on problems relating to water pollution, including a comprehensive report reviewing water pollution in Ireland generally. If the Water Pollution Advisory Council had been kept in place the mistakes in this Bill when published in January 1989 would not have been made. The council could have been consulted on the provisions in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister would have got the Bill right and it would have been enacted by now.
Section 30 seeks to delete section 2 from the 1977 Act. It is trying to give statutory form to the surreptitious piece of executive jiggery pokery that the Minister got up to. It is an attempt to give some legality to the surreptitious abolition of the Water Pollution Advisory Council. I deplore that. I have no doubt the Minister will tell me the council is no longer required because the environment protection agency will take the work of the council. I would remind the Minister that she has not yet even circulated a Bill to establish the environment protection agency. There have been in excess of 40 press releases, Government statements and promises about the environment protection agency since Fine Gael published a Private Members' Bill in November 1989. Statements have been delivered not only by the Minister of State present but by a whole panoply of Ministers, including the Taoiseach who promised this great green Presidency in January 1990. It is looking extremely green and frayed about the edges in the context of domestic legislative initiative.
The Minister will probably repeat that it is hoped the Bill will be circulated before the end of this session. That is code for saying that with a bit of luck it will be got through the various Government offices, the Cabinet and the Attorney General's Office before July. There is not a hope of its being debated before the autumn and the likelihood of its being enacted by Christmas is limited since it will have to go through the Seanad as well as through this House.
At the minimum we should keep the Water Pollution Advisory Council in being. This Minister has been given responsibility in the area of pollution generally, which means that the malign influence of the senior Minister in relation to the Water Pollution Advisory Council was removed in July last year. This Minister could since then have appointed members to the Water Pollution Advisory Council. Members should be appointed to that body and allowed to operate and report to the Oireachtas on how we are doing and on the initial effectiveness of this legislation.
If we see a Bill relating to the establishment of the environmental protection agency it would be appropriate for it to contain a provision where the Water Pollution Advisory Council would remain in place until such time as the agency was established. It might then be appropriate that the Water Pollution Advisory Council be disbanded.
It is singularly inappropriate that for the past three and a half years the Water Pollution Advisory Council has not been operating. It would be singularly appropriate to have a specialist body, independent of the Department of the Environment and its Minister and independent of the Department of the Marine and that Minister, to have an independent look at the initial working of this legislation so that any problems can rapidly be addressed. It is our intention to oppose this section.
I do not believe it is correct to abolish this body. I deplore the fact that the Minister for Environment has, by sleight of hand, since 1987, prevented this statutory body from operating and has failed to comply with his statutory obligations to appoint members to this body.
As my amendment to this section has been ruled out of order, I, too, will be opposing this section which proposes the abolition of the Water Pollution Advisory Council.
When dead fish were being hauled out of rivers and lakes last summer, the Minister of State made different statements. On 7 August last year, one newspaper stated that though new laws to crack down on water polluters had been promised on 6 August by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Mary Harney, as the number of reported fish kills for 1989 looked set to reach record levels.
This Bill is seriously diluted and will worsen rather than improve the situation. During the debate on an earlier section, the case was made for a Water Pollution Advisory Council and it was pointed out that there are defects in this Bill precisely because we have not had a council who could comment on it. If we had such a council I do not believe we would have had the confusion about the views of the regional fisheries boards and the apparent bureaucratic breakdown which occurred between the regional boards, the central board, the Department of the Marine and, ultimately, the Department of the Environment in regard to the 1959 Act.
The problem of water pollution cannot be simply locked into one piece of legislation; there are many dimensions to it. There are a number of Acts dealing with this matter, for example, the 1959 Act and the 1977 Act, and a number of EC Directives dealing with drinking water, etc. There are a whole range of areas where the views of different specialists, interests, and so on need to be brought together in one single body so that we can have an overall approach to water pollution.
The abolition of the Water Pollution Advisory Council will be a retrograde step. I do not believe the environmental protection agency, which is now being offered as a panacea to everything which is wrong in the environment, is going to subsume the functions of the Water Pollution Advisory Council. Even if we had an environmental protection agency already in place, there would still be a need for somebody to deal with the specific issue of water pollution in a comprehensive way. That could be part of the functions of the environmental protection agency but it seems to be putting the cart very far in front of the horse to abolish the Water Pollution Advisory Council and then say "perhaps when the EPA legislation goes through both Houses in two years' time, they can deal with the problem of water pollution".
Why not leave the Water Pollution Advisory Council in place? If it is the view that bodies like the Water Pollution Advisory Council should be consolidated into the environmental protection agency, we could deal with that at a later stage. It seems to be a totally retrograde step to abolish the Water Pollution Advisory Council and leave a vaccuum — there has been a vacuum in this area for the past three years — in regard to a body giving advice about water pollution. The legislation before us shows all the signs that there has been no Water Pollution Advisory Council in place over the past two years. If such a council had been in place, some of the defects we have highlighted during the debate could have been avoided at an earlier stage — for example, the debate we had on the role of the fishery boards about half an hour ago could have been avoided.
Deputy Shatter and Deputy Gilmore have spoken very eloquently on this matter. I do not want to detain the House unduly, but I want to point out the very shabby way in which the Minister has addressed the abolition of the Water Pollution Advisory Council; she stuck it in at the very end of the Bill. This is no way to do business in this House and I will be opposing this section.
I do not know what Deputy Garland was talking about when he said I stuck this section in at the end of the Bill. The last Water Pollution Advisory Council ceased to operate in December 1986, three months before the previous Government came into office. During those three months, the then Government of which Deputy Shatter's party were a member, did not seek to reappoint the Water Pollution Advisory Council. I make that point because I believe it is appropriate in a debate of this kind to at least put the facts fairly and squarely on the table.
I am not abolishing the Water Pollution Advisory Council, and if an environmental protection agency were not going to be set up I would not favour the abolition of the Water Pollution Advisory Council. I hasten to add that I do not regard the environmental protection agency as a panacea for all our ills nor do I think that that is the way they should be perceived. They will have a difficult job to do. However, I believe they will have a significant part to play in monitoring and advising on a whole host of environmental matters. They will have to ensure that all the advice is streamlined and comes from one organisation who have to look at the environment in its truest sense and not at water separately from waste, soil or air. I am sure the Deputies do not believe the Government should establish an air pollution advisory council, a waste pollution advisory council and a soil pollution advisory council.
Ireland is a small country with 3.5 million people and we have to streamline our operations to ensure they are efficient and effective. We have to insist that whatever resources we can allocate to environmental protection — the more we can allocate the better — are efficiently and effectively used and managed. It is for that reason the Government have decided to put an advisory council in with the environmental protection agency. This council will have a wide brief to deal with all aspects of environmental pollution and not just water pollution.
We have enormous problems and issues to deal with both in terms of commitments coming from the European Community and the problems we have here in relation to waste, etc. The advisory council will not deal exclusively with water pollution matters. This body will be effective, have teeth, and will work in conjunction with the agency who will be monitoring and enforcing the law, taking prosecutions where necessary, and so on. They will have a much greater role allied to the environmental protection agency than if they were an advisory council on their own issuing reports to the Oireachtas. I note many of the recommendations and reports in this area made in the past never saw the light of day.
In regard to Deputy Shatter's comments on the environmental protection agency Bill, I am disappointed it has taken so long to introduce it. However, it has been proceeded with with the greatest speed by my officials and me. Unfortunately, these things take longer than one might wish but, as I have said, the gestation period is almost over and the baby will be born within a matter of weeks, if not days.
It is a bit overdue.
When the Bill is published Deputies will see that it is effective and comprehensive. As I said before, it will be the most major legislation in this area since the planning Acts of the early sixties. I believe it will be perceived to be effective by the public and the organisations concerned. There will also be a role, by way of an advisory council, for environmental concerns and organisations. I believe this is the most appropriate way to deal with the matter.
I am disappointed that the co-operation we had this morning — I believe I have been more than reasonable — will not continue and the Deputies are going to insist on calling a vote on this section. If that is the case, so be it, but I cannot accept the comments and the points made by Deputies Shatter, Gilmore and Garland on the matter.
I wish to respond to one or two points. Every time I hear the Minister talking about the Environment Protection Agency I realise that, apart from the amusement of it all, each successive statement makes it clear that the agency she now has in mind in the context of structures and powers is more and more aligned with the provisions contained in the Private Members' Bill that my Party published in November last. I am delighted that she has now agreed that there should be an advisory council. She might go back and look at that Bill and she will discover that that was part of it. It is now going to be an independent agency with prosecuting powers; that was part of it as well.
I do not want to delay the House on that but any drafting problems the Minister may have had with this Bill could well have been resolved if the Minister had accepted the Fine Gael Bill at Second Stage and tabled constructive amendments to it on Committee Stage. Instead of not having a Bill circulated and no prospect of embarking on one until the Autumn, that Bill could now be part of the law and the agency could be up and running.
It is worth commenting on the fact that the Minister did not offer any defence for the failure of her senior Minister to appoint members to the advisory council, other than suggesting, lamely, that the outgoing Fine Gael/Labour Government should have made appointments to it. As she knows the previous advisory council was in office until 31 December 1986. Within two weeks of that a general election was called. Can you imagine the howls of derision that would have gone up——
Several appointments were made.
——from the Progresssive Democrats or Fianna Fail if, just before that Government went out of office, they had made appointments to the advisory council? No matter who was appointed, that Government would have been accused of putting in their cronies and not allowing the Government of the day make appropriate appointments. The Minister knows that well. The Government did the right and honourable thing.
Would the Deputy address the section.
This is the section, section 2. The Minister has suggested that the outgoing Labour-Fine Gael Coalition were at fault.
It deals with section 30.
It is abolishing section 2 which relates to the Water Pollution Advisory Council.
What the Deputy has given expression to since he began to address the House would not seem to be related to section 2 either.
It is, Sir. It is responding to what the Minister said. Section 30 of the Bill is abolishing section 2 of the 1977 Act which established the Water Pollution Advisory Council. The Minister suggested that in some way it was the fault of the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition that appointments were not made. She knows well that that Government behaved honourably and correctly, when going out of office, in not making last minute appointments to that council and leaving it to the incoming Minister to make the appointments that he deemed appropriate. I have no doubt that had there been appointments made the Minister would have been saying that the council was discredited because political hacks had been appointed by an outgoing Government. The Government cannot have it both ways.
The bottom line on this issue is that the Minister knows that at present we do not have an Environment Protection Agency and we will not have it in place before the start of next year. Even that is an optimistic assessment. The Water Pollution Advisory Council should be kept in place. The provision in section 30 of this Bill, where the Minister tries to remove that council from its statutory position, is not a correct approach. The Minister, if she was really serious about what she is at, instead of abolishing this Water Pollution Advisory Council would, in the context of the appalling fish kills that were taking place during the summer months of last year, have appointed new members to that council, reconstituted it and had it up and running and operating until such time as we debated in this House the provisions of the Environment Protection Agency Bill that the Government publish.
In that context we are opposing section 30. I do not wish to bring any particular ill will to bear on this debate but let me, as an aside, say that Deputy Garland has been throwing around political torpedoes and grenades during the morning about Tallaght strategies and welcoming the fact that Fine Gael are opposing bits of this Bill, not having opposed others. Let me point out that some six months ago I tabled an amendment to this Bill with a view to preserving the Water Pollution Advisory Council in being. I welcome the fact that within the last 48 hours Deputy Garland has added his name to the amendment I tabled. I feel it is worth pointing that out and putting it on the record of the House. That said, I welcome the fact that there seems to be full support from all sides of the House for keeping the Water Pollution Advisory Council in place.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá 68; Níl, 62.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Roche, Dick.
- Stafford, John.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Joe.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Gallagher and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and Howlin.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 31.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 25, subsection (4), lines 21 to 25, to delete all words from and including "on such day" in line 21, down to the end of the subsection and substitute "not later than 3 months after its passing.".
I introduced this amendment because of the delay in bringing the Bill before the House. The Bill was introduced in January 1989 and, presumably, it will be passed during this session but how long more will we have to wait for its provisions to be implemented? How much time will be wasted on the Order of Business and in putting questions to Ministers about the introduction of the relevant regulations? It could be a very long time. During that time I wonder what the vested interests will be doing. They will be asking for more time and more time.
The provisions of the Bill may not be implemented until next year but what will happen to our rivers in the meantime? There will be more and more fish kills, more and more pollution. I have introduced a very reasonable amendment, that the Bill be fully implemented within three months of its being passed in the House.
My party are opposing section 31 of the Bill on the basis that it would give the Minister a general discretion as to when the Bill will become operative. Deputy Garland is correct in saying that there is no guarantee it will become operative in 1990, indeed there is no guarantee that it will become operative in 1991 or 1992.
Equally, as I said this morning, it is essential that the Bill is enacted during this session of the Oireachtas so that the amendments made here are dealt with in the Seanad because most incidents of pollution occur during the summer months. Deputy Garland's amendment is incorrectly drafted because it would mean that the Bill would come into force not later than three months after its passing. It does not say when it would come into force but, under his amendment, the Bill would not become law until September or October next if it takes until the end of this month to deal with it in the Seanad. We will be voting against the last section in the Bill unless the Minister is prepared to confirm to the House that she will table an amendment on Report Stage to delete subsection (4) of section 31. If she is prepared to do that we will not call for a vote on that issue today.
We must deal with the amendment in Deputy Garland's name before we proceed to the section. Deputy Gilmore on the amendment.
All Members are agreed that they would like to see this legislation in operation as quickly as possible. In relation to the amendment and Deputy Shatter's comments on the section generally, if the Minister gave the assurance or a clear indication as to when the Government intend to give effect to the legislation it would make a difference. I should like to see the legislation in operation as soon as possible.
It is also my wish to ensure that this legislation is implemented as quickly as possible. Having gone through the difficulties associated with bringing forward this comprehensive legislation, obviously it will be implemented. However, I have difficulties with the Deputy's amendment because the date on which Bills — or various parts of them — come into operation are left to the discretion of Minsters to avoid particular difficulties. For example, section 34 (c) of the 1977 Act gave the fisheries boards authority under sections 171 and 172 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, to prosecute local authorities for sewage pollution but if there had been a fixed date for bringing the Act into being the provision would have been abolished and local authorities would have been above the law. Very often particular aspects of Bills have to be put in place when other things happen and, for that reason, it is not desirable to fix a specific time for bringing the whole act into being. Obviously, however, it is our intention to bring as much of it into operation as quickly as possible after it passes all Stages in both Houses of the Oireachtas. I ask Deputy Garland, for practical reasons, to withdraw his amendment because it is not difficult to make a provision in relation to this kind of provision. I ask him to reconsider the time limit he wishes to impose. The time limit in his last amendment was 1 April which has now passed and it may well be that if this Bill goes through the House and the amendments go back to the Seanad we will be able to implement most of the Act within or before a period of three months from today or from its passing.
I do not understand Deputy Shatter's comment. I should have prefaced my remarks by saying that of course if the Bill can be put into operation prior to the period of three months, so much the better. However, my amendment is very specific, it says "not later than three months after its passing". I am not inclined to withdraw this amendment because I am not impressed by the Minister's response to this very serious matter.
If Deputy Garland has his way it would read "this Act shall come into operation not less than three months after its passing" and it would provide no particular mechanism for saying when it was to come into force or what parts of it would come into force. I do not know what legal effect that would have but it certainly would not say when the Bill should come into force. I appreciate that Deputy Garland wants to make provision to ensure that the Bill comes into force within three months but he should have gone on to provide that if a ministerial order is not made bringing it into force within the three months period, it should thereafter automatically come into force. Unfortunately — and I am sure this is not deliberate — Deputy Garland has not got the amendment right and it will not work. My point is that this Bill should become operative this summer, not next September or October. The Minister has not offered a scintilla of reasons for bringing individual sections into operation from time to time by ministerial order although it is necessary with some legislation. The Department of the Environment or the Attorney General's Office automatically put this provision in every Bill that comes from their Department because they feel that perhaps the Minister might want to have second thoughts about one of its provisions when the legislation has been enacted. The problem is that there is no guarantee to any Member of the House that any provision in the Bill will ever be enacted. Legislation was passed in regard to mental health in 1980 which nobody has put in force. The same provision was in the Derelict Sites Act and the Minister for the Environment agreed to delete that provision in the Bill at our request. There is no reason for subsection (4) in this section. I ask Deputy Garland not to put his amendment because it would not work. If the Minister responds, we can complete the Bill.
The Minister cannot respond after 1.30 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.