The purpose of this Bill is to make more effective arrangements for control of water pollution with a view to ensuring that the quality of our water resources is maintained to a satisfactory standard consistent with their various beneficial uses.
There is at present a great deal of concern in this and other countries about the need to protect the natural environment from adverse effects of all forms of development. Experience in industrialised countries has been that economic and technological progress, while bringing immense material benefits, was very often accompanied by deterioration of the environment. It is the general aim of environmental protection policy to ensure that progress with industrial, agricultural and residential development is not achieved at the cost of environmental damage. In saying this I should stress that there need be no inherent conflict between the maintenance of a good environment and the promotion of such development, provided the necessary safeguards are taken. The challenge is essentially one of ensuring that there is a proper regard for environmental considerations in the planning and carrying out of development works of all kinds. This includes making adequate provision for the safe disposal of the wastes which are the by-product of development.
In the area of pollution control one of the more pressing needs is the improvement of arrangements for control of water pollution. There is no need for me to stress the very favourable position which this country enjoys as regards water availability. We have abundant water resources enjoys as regards water availability. We have abundant water resources which are relatively free of pollution. They constitute a valuable national asset which must be protected. Water is required for almost every human activity. Very large quantities are used for industrial, commercial and domestic purposes. Our rivers, lakes and seas support a valuable fishing industry. Water is used in many different ways for recreational purposes and is important from a tourism point of view. It is therefore essential to preserve and where necessary improve the quality conditions of our lakes, rivers, estuaries and coastal waters so that the quality requirements of all users are adequately catered for.
I have said that our water resources are relatively free of pollution. While surveys have shown this to be the case, they have also indicated that localised pollution, serious in places, is occurring. The most comprehensive quality survey of our waters has been the national survey of Irish rivers carried out by the water resources division of An Foras Forbartha. In April, 1972, An Foras published a report on the water quality survey of rivers carried out in 1971. This initial survey covered the main water systems in the country—121 rivers to a total length of nearly 3,000 kilometres. The results showed that 7 per cent of the total length of rivers surveyed was in bad condition; a further 10 per cent was classified as doubtful and the remainder was found to be satisfactory. Some special attention was paid in the survey to river stretches in which pollution was known to be a problem, it is probable that water quality in the great lengths of main river channel which were not surveyed would generally be satisfactory. In 1972-73 An Foras Forbartha carried out further chemical investigations into the quality of stretches of rivers, total length 400 km, almost all of which were found to be unsatisfactory in the earlier survey. The results of these investigations were published in April, 1974. They show that 14 of the stretches examined were reasonably satisfactory, 15 were satisfactory only part of the time and seven were in a polluted condition.
These surveys indicate that most of the serious pollution occurs in stretches of rivers downstream of urban areas and industrial enterprises that most of the pollution encountered is organic in nature and that toxic conditions—caused, for example, by the presence of heavy metals—occur in only a few cases.
In addition to the surveys of rivers, An Foras Forbartha also carried out a preliminary survey of 53 lakes, the results of which were published in May, 1975. The purpose of the survey, which was the first overall examination of lakes on a systematic basis, was to make a tentative assessment of the extent of enrichment of the more important and representative lakes in the country. While the survey did not attempt a definitive assessment of the position in particular lakes, it indicated that certain lakes are showing indications of, or tendencies towards, excessive enrichment. An Foras Forbartha have commenced more detailed studies of selected lakes.
The fact that despite increasing urban growth and industrialisation our waters are still relatively free from pollution is due in part to the expanded sanitary services programme undertaken in recent years and partly to the control of new development operated by planning authorities. It was possible to achieve a measure of co-ordination of development with new sewerage schemes, to require development proposals to incorporate measures to prevent pollution, or even to refuse permission for development which would give rise to pollution. However, the 1963 Planning Act was not designed specifically to deal with all aspects of pollution control and it has been evident for some time that other existing statutory provisions, many of which date back to the last century, are inadequate. If we are to provide essential safeguards against the ever-increasing threat of water pollution we need specific legislation.
In the circumstances I expect that the main principles of this Bill will find general acceptance by all parties. Many of the Bill's provisions will be readily identified as emanating from recommendations of an inter-departmental working group established in 1970 and whose report, entitled Report on Water Pollution, was published in March, 1973. Comments on the working group's recommendations were submitted by a number of interested bodies and all these views were carefully considered prior to the preparation of the Bill.
I think it is fair to say that while there was general agreement on the type of measures required to control water pollution there was, and may still be, some difference of opinion on the issue of who should administer the new controls. The working group came out strongly in favour of control at local level being operated by county and county borough councils. The alternatives which have been considered are control by a national board or by regional or river authorities, possibly as part of a general responsibility for management of water resources on a national or catchment basis.
While it could be said that such boards would approach the problems of water pollution in a single-minded way, an arrangement of this kind could give rise to serious conflicts at both policy and practical levels, separated as it would be from the general system for planning and control of development, which has a fundamental relationship to the problem of water pollution. Water pollution is a side-effect of development and I am satisfied that there are compelling arguments for integrating the arrangements for dealing with water pollution as closely as possible with the physical planning system.
Such an approach requires a system of water pollution control which would be operated by local authorities under the aegis of the Minister for Local Government. Furthermore, local authorities have responsibility for other important aspects of water resource management, that is provision of water supplies and sewage disposal. The vesting in local authorities of responsibility for water pollution control would therefore facilitate an integrated approach to overall water resource management.
As I have already suggested, I believe that the environment and the development process can co-exist in harmony provided the necessary constraints are understood and applied. It seems to me that this will be best assured if there is a comprehensive and integrated evaluation of development proposals as is possible only within the local government system. If the evaluation is fragmented, with separate bodies responsible for particular pollution control or other aspects, and for these aspects only, it seems clear that the whole control system will become more complex and burdensome, that new problems of liaison and co-ordination will be introduced, and that the risks of unnecessary conflict and delay will be greatly increased, to the benefit neither of the environment nor of the economy. I am not convinced that there would be advantages to compensate for these difficulties or to warrant the costs involved in setting up and operating new control structures at this stage.
A study of arrangements operated in other countries for pollution control reveals no uniform approach to the question. Different systems are used by different countries. The important consideration for us is to adopt a system suited to our particular needs and which will function effectively, having regard to the organisational and planning framework within which it will have to operate.
The Government consider that the arguments in favour of vesting the main control functions, as the Bill proposes, in local authorities are entirely conclusive. This approach is also in line with the Government's objectives in relation to development of local government. It is recognised however that circumstances may change and may in the future strengthen the case for different or additional structures either in general or in particular cases. As I shall explain, the Bill includes provisions to meet that eventuality as well.
Some particular criticisms of local authorities as the future controllers of water pollution are predictable. It may be alleged that they have not been very successful in controlling pollution in the past, that they themselves are among the main polluters and that their functional areas are not suitable as they do not coincide with river basins.
These arguments are not well-founded. In regard to their past performance it is only fair to point out that local authorities had no specific statutory responsibility to control water pollution and lacked the necessary powers to take effective action. As to pollution caused by local authority sewerage schemes it must be borne in mind that local authorities had of necessity to concentrate in the past on provision of basic drainage facilities for housing and industrial development due to the limited capital which could be made available for the sanitary services programme.
Local authorities are however more than anxious to put their own houses in order. For many years now all new sewage disposal systems have incorporated treatment facilities to avoid pollution. Remedial works have been carried out to many older systems which were giving rise to pollution problems and in appropriate cases the schemes have been designed to enable tertiary treatment to be added if this is shown to be necessary. Further works are in progress and planning is well advanced for a very substantial programme in the next few years. As an example of such works the local authorities in the Dublin area have works in progress or recently completed costing approximately £20 million which have or will achieve significant improvements in conditions in the Dublin rivers and in the bay.
The difficulty about areas is not an insurmountable one. Provision is made in the Bill for co-ordinated action on a river catchment basis to be secured by consultation and co-operation, assisted where necessary by the preparation of water quality management plans. There is of course also need for involvement of the various interests concerned at local level, including fishery, agricultural, health and other interests.
In this connection I should mention that towards the end of last year it was suggested to local authorities that they should examine possibilities for co-ordination of action with other interests within catchments or groups of catchments. This suggestion has resulted in the setting up of informal co-ordination committees for catchments in a number of areas. The Bill takes account of the possibility that further development of the arrangements for water pollution control may become desirable at some future stage and includes a reserve power which could be used, if the need arises, to set up water quality control authorities in respect of catchments or suitable groups of catchments which, due to their size or configuration, might give rise to special problems.
Before leaving this aspect of the matter I should say that the Government have set up an inter-departmental environment committee whose functions include the co-ordination of the activities of the various Departments concerned with environmental matters. In so far as water pollution is concerned the machinery is therefore already available to secure any necessary co-ordination at national level.
It is envisaged that the Minister's role under the Bill will be mainly a supervisory one and that the implementation of national policy on water pollution control will be secured mainly through the issue of general advice and guidance to the local control authorities. The Minister will however have important powers enabling him to take effective action if this should become necessary—for example, by requiring alternation of water quality management plans or by establishing special water quality control authorities. He will also be empowered to prescribe quality standards and to require local authorities and boards of conservators to consult with each other and with other bodies as necessary in relation to the performance of functions under the Bill.
In the discharge of his functions and responsibilities the Minister will have the advice of a water pollution advisory council. Such a council has already been set up on an informal basis. All relevant interests, including industrial, agricultural, fishery, professional, scientific, voluntary and local authority interests in addition to the Government Departments and semi-State bodies concerned, are represented on the present council. The Minister has also set up a technical expert group to advise him on questions of water quality and effluent standards.
Before dealing with any of the detailed provisions of the Bill I should explain that this particular piece of legislation has important international and EEC implications. It will facilitate compliance with the Paris Conventon for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land Based Sources, to which this country is a contracting party, as well as obligations arising under the EEC Programme of Action on the Environment, which was adopted in November, 1973. To date a number of important proposals relating to water quality have been processed by the Community under this programme. These include a directive on the quality of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water and a directive on the quality of bathing waters. Considerable progress has been made towards finalising a directive on the discharge of dangerous substances into the aquatic environment.
There is also the Community's recommendation on the "polluter pays principle", which outlines a common approach to the application of the principle in pollution control. The essence of the principle is that the person responsible for pollution should bear the cost involved in eliminating it or in reducing it to an acceptable level. The principle is reflected in the Bill.
I will now deal with the main provisions of the Bill. The explanatory memorandum which was circulated with the Bill goes into a fair amount of detail and I will confine myself at this stage to summarising the more important provisions. These include the introduction of a system of licensing of discharges of trade and certain sewage effluents to waters, including inland waters, tidal waters and the sea. The licensing system will apply to effluent from any works, apparatus, plant or drainage pipe used for the disposal to waters of liquid waste discharged from premises used for any trade or industry. It will not apply to discharges to tidal waters from vessels or marine structures.
The licensing authority in the case of an administrative county, including any urban areas situated therein, will be the county council and in the case of a county borough, the corporation of the county borough. A county council or county borough corporation will be empowered to grant a licence, subject to or without conditions, or to refuse to grant a licence. Licences will be subject to review at intervals of not less than three years or at any time in certain circumstances, such as where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the discharge is a significant threat to public health.
Any person will have a right of appeal to the Minister against the grant or refusal of a licence, the terms of a licence or a decision on review of a licence. It is intended to consider having an appropriate amendment introduced to this Bill at a suitable stage to provide that appeals will be determined by An Bord Pleanála, instead of by the Minister, if and when the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1973, which provides for the establishment of An Bord Pleanála, is enacted.
The licensing system will apply to both existing and new discharges. In the case of existing discharges it is proposed that where application is made before a date to be fixed by order the discharge may continue to be made without a licence until such time as the local authority concerned decides to grant or refuse a licence. This will enable a flexible approach to be adopted in the case of existing discharges.
While discharges from public sewers will be exempted from the licensing provisions of the Bill, the Minister will be empowered to make regulations for the prescription of quality standards for, among other things, effluents from public sewers. The effect of any regulations made in respect of sewage effluent from a public sewer or in respect of waters into which such effluent discharges would be to place a statutory duty on the sanitary authority concerned to take steps as soon as practicable to ensure that the effluent does not contravene the regulations.
The Bill proposes a general prohibition on the entry of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to waters. The prohibition will not apply to trade or sewerage effluents, which will be subject to the proposed licensing system, the entry of matter from vessels or marine structures to tidal waters or to discharges or deposits which are authorised under various enactments.
The Bill extends to discharges from agricultural activities. The position in this respect is that agricultural waste, unless it is discharged from any apparatus, plant or drainage pipe used for the disposal to waters of such waste, will not be subject to the proposed licensing procedure. Most agricultural liquid waste—for example, slurry—is collected and stored in tanks, for subsequent spreading on the land. Any overflow from storage tanks, leaching from silage pits, runoff from farm yards and so on which is not actually piped to waters would not constitute a licensable effluent under the Bill. Instead, such discharges would be covered by the general prohibition on the discharge of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to waters. The relevant section however provides that it shall be a good defence to a prosecution for the person charged to show that he has taken all reasonable care to prevent the discharge. I might mention that the main remedy for pollution arising from certain agricultural operations, such as slurry spreading, will probably lie in the further development of advisory and educational services in this field, including the agricultural advisory services.
The Bill also introduces a system of licensing of discharges of trade effluent or matter, other than domestic sewage or storm water, to sewers on the same general lines as the licensing system for discharges of trade and sewage effluent to waters. In this case the licensing authority will be the sanitary authority in which the sewer concerned is vested.
As regards enforcement, the provisions of the Bill include power for local authorities to take steps to prevent an unauthorised or prohibited entry or discharge, to remedy the effects of such an entry or discharge and to recover the cost of such steps from the person responsible, together with realistic penalties. Special provision is made for action in cases of urgency—for example, removal of oil following an oil spillage.
Local authorities will be obliged to carry out such monitoring and analysis of discharges and receiving waters as may be necessary for the performance of their functions or as may be directed by the Minister. They will also of course have the necessary powers of entry and inspection. It is envisaged that programmes for monitoring of receiving waters will be co-ordinated on a catchment area basis. The local authority monitoring will also be co-ordinated with any monitoring programmes carried out by other bodies, for example, An Foras Forbartha. In this connection I should mention that the main activities which will be generated by the Bill, including monitoring, laboratory work, and so on, are being examined in the Department with a view to holding discussions with local authorities on the subject.
Another important provision of the Bill is that which enables county and county borough councils to make water quality management plans. It is intended that initially such plans will be made for important catchments only. They will contain objectives for prevention and abatement of pollution of the waters concerned and the necessary informational framework for the proper quality management of the waters. They will therefore form the blueprint against which decisions on water quality issues in the catchment or catchments concerned will be taken. Provision is included for the periodic variation or replacement of a plan.
I have already touched on the need for a co-ordinated approach on a catchment basis to overall quality management of water resources by the various interests involved. Under section 23 the Minister will be empowered, following consultation with the Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries and Industry and Commerce, to require local authorities and boards of conservators to consult one another or other interested parties in relation to the performance of any function under the Bill.
This is an important provision. Apart from local authorities there are other bodies at local level with a special interest in water pollution. Chief among these are the boards of conservators. Due account is taken in the Bill of the need to facilitate and assist the boards in the protection of fisheries. Apart from the consultative provision, they will be empowered to take prosecutions and appropriate enforcement action.
The Bill will repeal the Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts, 1876 and 1893, and also the licensing and related provisions of the Fisheries Acts, that is, sections 171 and 172 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, which are being replaced by the control provisions of the Bill.
I do not propose to make any further comment at this stage other than to say that the provisions of the Bill are aimed at providing a reasonably flexible statutory basis for control of water pollution backed up by realistic penalties and effective enforcement procedures. When we come to consider the detailed provisions of the Bill on Committee Stage, some of which are fairly technical and complex, I will be glad to give full consideration to any worth-while suggestions for improvements which may be put forward.
I commend the Bill to the House.