Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 May 1976

Vol. 84 No. 1

Local Government (Water Pollution) Bill, 1976: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

According to a report in a newspaper last year, for the first time in over 100 years, salmon had been caught in the River Thames. In the major rivers of Europe there are no salmon. That compares to some extent with our situation where in some of our best rivers the number of salmon going upstream in recent years has been declining. Fishermen believe this decline is due to water pollution. It is said that we are going backwards in our efforts to combat pollution while, in Britain, they seem to be going forward. They have eliminated the dreadful pollution in the rivers serving industrial centres to such an extent that fish life is returning to these rivers. There are many people employed here in the salmon fishing industry and it would be a disaster if it were to be destroyed by our negligence in combating pollution.

Senator Whyte referred to a type of pollution that was causing concern on the River Shannon about two years ago. It was caused by the emission of peat moss into the River Shannon by Bord na Móna. Senator Whyte felt this would have an adverse effect on fish life. I heard in a news bulletin yesterday that Bord na Móna are now carrying out tests to ascertain whether this excessive emission of peat moss is, in fact, affecting fish life. Two years ago Senator Whyte was concerned about this and raised the matter here. Only now are Bord na Móna investigating the incidence of pollution caused by this emission. There is a general lack of concern throughout the country with regard to the pollution of our waterways.

I said at the outset that I am not in agreement with local authorities being in control. They are themselves the greatest water polluters. Control should be left to the bodies which look after it at the moment and do quite well within the limits of their small resources. I refer to the boards of conservators. They do a wonderful job. They are concerned with the elimination of water pollution. This is not the case with local authorities. This is why I contend that the boards of conservators should be the bodies to be in charge of eliminating this problem. I agree that members of local authorities might sit in on meetings of the board of conservators and also representatives from the Department of Local Government. I would primarily give these duties to the boards of conservators because they are given the task of protecting fish life in our waterways. If they feel that pollution levels are so high as to endanger this life they will take action. It is their immediate concern. Local authorities, by and large, are not concerned.

The officials of local authorities are not immediately concerned. The board of conservators consists of fishermen themselves and their representatives. The immediate concern of local authority officials is to save money, to cut down on expenditure. They will give in to pressure from the elected members of local authorities, the officials of the Departments who are directing their affairs from above, and they will not necessarily try to combat pollution. They would rather try to save money, I am afraid. Because of that, I cannot agree with this proposal. To prevent pollution means that you will have to spend money creating sewage disposal plants or otherwise. The cheapest way to get rid of sewage effluent is dump it into a river. That is what local authorities tend to do. That is not the way the matter should be dealt with.

I agree with the proposal that industry should have to pay for the monitoring of the effluent they are emitting. At the moment industries are getting away on the cheap by being able to dump their effluent into our waterways. Some of these industrialists will continue to take the easy way out, if they are allowed. Some members of local authorities will have to be prepared to take action against industrialists who are polluting our waterways. They will be threatened by the industrialists that the factories they control may have to close and put people out of work if they have to find other ways of getting rid of the effluent. This is a type of blackmail for an elected representative. The penalties envisaged in this Bill are a deterrent, but I see a danger that these will not be implemented because the members of local authorities will be put under pressure from some industrialists. You will always get the unscrupulous individual who will take the easy and cheap way out.

I would liketo see the members of local authorities kept informed of the sources of pollution in their areas because those of us interested enough to bring pressure to bear on the people responsible for this contamination to have it eliminated have no contact whatsoever with the boards of conservators. We read periodically in the newspapers that the local authorities are the people causing the bulk of the pollution. The whole matter is dealt with by the officials and it never really comes before the members who deal with the issues involved.

Another reason why I feel it is not sensible to have local authorities controlling water pollution is that too many local authorities are involved for some water systems. I will mention just one. The Rivers Suir, Nore and Barrow meet before going into the sea in Waterford Harbour. These three rivers travel through seven or eight counties. That involves seven or eight county councils plus at least a dozen local urban councils, corporations or town commissioners. If each local authority is involved in the control of pollution it will be a most cumbersome task to detect the cause of pollution if it is eventually discovered in an area such as Waterford Harbour. The board of conservators, whose jurisdiction is over a complete waterway from the very start of the river to the point where it goes into the sea are the logical people to see that that waterway is kept free of pollution. These people control fish life. The greatest indication of pollution is when fish life are in danger. In recent years we have seen that fish life are being destroyed more and more.

The reasons are simple enough. The amount of effluent going into our waterways is increasing because of modern methods of disposal and, secondly, because rainfall in recent years has been abnormally low, so a much lesser amount of water is absorbing a much greater amount of effluent, therefore decreasing the amount of oxygen available to fish life. It is imperative, with this decreasing amount of fresh water in our waterways, that the amount of effluent likely to affect fish life should be drastically curtailed.

I have three main faults to find with the Bill. I disagree that local authorities should be the controlling body with regard to containment of pollution. I feel that agricultural effluent is treated too lightly in the Bill, that people are given far too much powers to emit agricultural effluent, because this is the greatest killer of all. I am told that slurry is absolutely deadly to fish life. I know that it has to be used and it has to be got rid of in the course of agriculture, but I think the restrictions on its use and its disposal should be greater. Thirdly, the provision comes into the Bill quite too often that accidental discharge of effluent will be considered a defence under this Bill. That is giving people too easy a way out. It will be too difficult to point the finger at the actual offender and it will render the Bill ineffective in many ways. As I stated at the outset, I welcome the Bill because it brings to the notice of the public a problem which has been with us for a long time and which we have done little to deal with up to now.

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá ar an mBille seo. Tá an Rúnaí Pharlaiminte i láthair agus tá a fhios agam go bhfuil Gaeilge blasta binn aige.

Tá áthas orm go bhfuil an Bille seo os ár gcomhair. Mar toradh de, tá mé cinnte go mbeidh uisce geal glan againn fosta. Ní bheidh na héisc ag fáil bháis sna locha agus beidh na hiascairí agus na daoine eile ag teacht chughainn chun taithneamh a bhaint as an iascaireacht agus áilleachtaí na tíre.

I am very glad to see such a Bill before the House. I feel it is tremendously important. Over the last couple of years a great song and dance has been made all over the country regarding pollution. It was thought that quite a number of people were jumping on the band wagon and that there was not perhaps real sincerity behind the many calls we heard. At the same time I must say that the Clean Water Association and various other groups who interested themselves in this were not a band of discontented people but people genuinely interested in the environment. We all know that we like to be considered a clean country and a clean people. Indeed, in my own county we won the Tidy Towns Competition on three or four occasions and were delighted to set a headline in that sphere.

We are all sensible enough to realise that a certain amount of pollution will occur, but until the industrial revolution took place in this country we did not hear very much about it. In my own constituency we were and are anxious to get industrialists into County Cavan, or indeed into that whole Fermanagh, Donegal, Leitrim, Monaghan area. Until very recently we were not too concerned about pollution, because we were very anxious to entice industrialists, and both the county council and the Government offered them rates exemptions.

When many of these industrialists set up industries they may not have realised the need to ensure that some method of disposal of effluent and waste be devised which would not cause pollution in the rivers. It was only when fish started dying and farmers started complaining that a lot of this talk regarding pollution arose and it dawned on people that many poisonous substances were being discharged into our rivers—and they were not all coming from factories.

Scientists admit that quite a lot of pollution is caused by detergents and various types of cleansing and bleaching materials used in laundries and even used by the housewife in her own domestic appliances. In the past we had pollution from flax in my area, but all that is gone. However, this other has come in its place. I know, as chairman of the regional development organisation in the north-eastern area, that our engineers devised a plan whereby they would maintain water levels in the summer at the winter level or as near to it as possible. In that way on this particular river they were able to conserve the amount of water and, by means of sluice gates, to diminish or increase the flow. We all know that if pollution is diluted it becomes less dangerous to fish life. That is a method which it would be very useful for us to employ not alone on that river but on many other rivers.

We must realise that in 1976 we must live with a certain amount of pollution because we want to get work for our people. We like the environment and we like to have tourists coming. But there has to be a happy medium whereby these people will sit down around a table and will agree to install—perhaps with some aid from the Government—the necessary machinery to ensure that our natural environment will not be destroyed. We all know that, given peaceful conditions, we could double or probably treble the summer population of our country with tourists. Irrespective of what prices are and so on, we have a tremendously attractive climate; we are not prone to earthquakes and the things that occur in more sunnier places. Certainly we have a lot to recommend to the tourist. We have good ferry services; the standard of our housing has increased. Down the years various regional organisations, local authorities and the Government have been providing fishing stands around our lakes and making many of these places generally more attractive and more pleasing to the tourist. We are glad to have them and try to do everything to make their short stay here reasonably comfortable.

I come from a county where we had a great tradition for producing pigs. A change has taken place in recent years. As a matter of fact, under a new direction a man must have ten sows before he will get a grant at all. But in days gone by if you had two or three you were all right. In other words, the tendency now is to get into the big unit. We have men in County Cavan who have 40,000 and up to 50,000 pigs. We know that in a single unit of that size the amount of slurry being discharged is colossal. You can erect a tank to contain that slurry. It can be guaranteed by the manufacturer and so on but yet it can burst, although this has not happened. We know that the fines the Government are entitled to impose would be insufficient to prevent people, purposely or because they had nowhere to put this material, discharging it into lakes and rivers. There is a regulation that a man must own so much land before he can extend his piggery to such a size; but due regard must be had of the type of soil in the area, whether it is the type that will not absorb slurry with the result that the slurry will probably float on the top and eventually find its way into the river. All these things would need to be taken into consideration.

At the same time we cannot destroy people engaged in pig production, because to the nation it is very important. It brings in a lot of wealth. We sell these pigs for export. Apart from supplying the local factories, the bacon and other products are exported and employment is provided. Therefore it is an important industry. We had an idea in Bailieborough— the Industrial Research and Standards people were on to it—of trying to produce a type of factory to turn this slurry into granulated manure that could be spread on our grasslands instead of importing fertilisers. It might be a very efficient way of producing grass. It is something we have. We cannot get rid of it and the best thing for us to do is to try to get our scientists to ensure that before it reaches the rivers and lakes it will have served a purpose on the land and it will do no harm whatever to the fish.

Rabbits have become immune to myxomatosis and there are hordes of them all over the country again. Fish may after a while develop some type of a built-in resistance to this algae or whatever appears in the lakes to eat up the oxygen and cause a lot of fish to die. I have often seen hundreds of fish dead in Lough Oughter. It is a depressing sight and we do not like to see it happen.

There are other types of pollution, such as oil, to threaten our rivers. I do not know of any law for the disposing of waste oil from garages or so on. They can throw it where they like and eventually it can find its way in. So also can sawdust. Various other types of pollution can find its way into our streams and cause serious pollution. The same applies regarding creameries, milk powder factories and so on.

I know our own milk powder factory in Killeshandra has spent an enormous amount of money so as to ensure that none of the effluent from that milk powder factory went into the lake. As a matter of fact, they piped it out to two or three local farms in the district and did a wonderful job. We were very glad to get these people in. Over 300 people are employed there and they are a consideration. It would not be very popular if somebody from the area came along and said this factory was preventing a few tourists from coming to our country, because our first concern of course must be the people who are working.

From the other side somebody mentioned the boards of conservators. I do not think they are the right people to handle this. We have a vast lake area starting with the Erne. I was present at a cross-Border meeting in Enniskillen. Some of the people there, especially Mr. Wells from Brussels, who is over there in connection with the EEC Regional Fund was amazed at the amount of water in the area. I do not think the board of conservators would be fit to handle it. There is a lot of merit in taking each river as a catchment area. These problems are dealt with on the Continent on an international basis. We have them here, too, in relation to the River Erne. There must be co-operation between various counties in such a situation and there must also be a catchment area.

The thinking behind the Bill is sound. As a member of the regional tourism organisation I know that the Lakeland Regional Tourism Board are worried about the effect pollution would have on tourists coming to that area. It is a region of many lakes and it does not have any seaboard. It is the only region in Ireland that has no seaboard. We are anxious to increase the number of tourists coming to the area. The regional manager and his staff would be very disappointed. It would be a big blow to their efforts to attract tourists to the area.

Pollution along the seacoast would probably disappear more quickly than inland pollution. It is very important to find some way of lessening the incidence of pollution especially in regard to the number of lakes in the Lakeland region. I know other areas suffer from pollution but they do not have as many lakes as are in our region. As some other Senator stated, it is much easier to control pollution when there is not a large expanse of water and it does not have the same ill-effects.

Very often people are inclined to blame the farmer for pollution. However, he must feel very annoyed if he lets his cattle down to drink at the lakeshore and finds it covered over with a green scum caused by pollution from some factory. People are inclined to think that because a farmer puts fertiliser on his land, 10-10-20 or something like that, it is the cause of pollution. All these factors must be investigated. There are plenty of people qualified to do this. They could investigate the effects of deep-litter pig and chicken rearing and the rapid production of cattle for the export market—the effects of these methods on the human being apart from the effects of pollution on fish in our rivers.

It is a useful exercise for the Seanad to have this discussion. It is not something which can be swept under the carpet. There is a great influx of visitors to the River Shannon and it is important to ensure that it is kept clean. There are plans to have the Rivers Shannon and Erne connected by a canal. There must be some legislation to protect small areas from a concentration of cabin cruisers and other boats which could cause pollution, which would not occur on the open sea.

All these matters are important and most of them are covered in this Bill. I welcome the Bill and I know that people will be pleased that it is before us. We shall do our best to improve and amend it as it proceeds.

Many people regard the effluent from silage pits to be deadly to fish. We must be sensible about this matter. That area is controlled by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. There should be a regulation regarding the siting of those silos. As a rule a farmer will not put a pit on the river bank or lake shore because it is not the best place for it anyway. He would prefer to have a concrete base under it and have water laid on. Therefore it would not be fair to blame him in this regard.

The same applies to sheep dipping tanks. In my own area the county council had to close a sheep dipping tank because it was alleged that the tank was built too close to the river and the effluent, which is deadly, seeped into the river and caused the death of fish. We learn as we go along. Now the county council would not dream of putting a sheep dipping tank adjacent to a river. Farmers do not wish to pollute the water they need for their animals. They would like to see the rivers clean. The main theme of this legislation should be the co-operation of the farmers, apart from the Government giving the lead.

I am not sure who should enforce this legislation. The county council have a difficult role to play because often the source of the pollution may cross their border into an adjoining county or State. If it was enforced by some Government committee it might be better, but I will not quibble about that now. I am glad to see this legislation, that we recognise the existence of pollution and are trying to approach the problem in a sensible way so that people, industry, animals and fish will have a fair share of God's graces.

I probably could speak at great length on this Bill but it will be a relief to Senators present that much of what I wish to say can be said at Committee Stage. My welcome for the Bill will be muted. I welcome it as a recognition of a serious deficiency in our legislation and as an admission of such a deficiency. I welcome it as a Bill which will focus attention on a problem which I do not think it will solve. There are good things in this Bill, as there are good bits in the parson's egg; but I would not welcome being asked to eat a parson's egg at breakfast unless I was assured at the bishopric of an award for my consumption.

The first discordant note will be to agree with what Senator Deasy said when he disagreed with the control of the licensing in relation to water pollution being given to local authorities. I wholly agree with Senator Deasy; I wholly disagree with the proposals in this Bill with regard to that matter.

It is perhaps worth emphasising that the only justification I can see for being a Senator is that we survey legislation offered to us by the Executive, irrespective of which part of the House we may find ourselves in from time to time. This seems to give to local authorities, who may be the worst offenders in the matter of pollution, the licensing of other bodies in their enterprises. It is not merely a question of the poacher turning gamekeeper; it is a question of giving power to the poacher to sue the gamekeeper. More than that, it is evident to anybody who gives any consideration to the manpower availability, or the skills required to be mustered to decide what quality of water our society should determine to have, that there will not be resources available under the control of all local authorities to administer properly the powers given to them by the Bill. They are by this Bill exempt from obligations themselves in relation to the effluents that necessarily result from development and expansion of the population.

This is much too serious a matter for us not to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what precisely were the comments, to which he referred in his speech, on the report on water pollution. This report was published in 1973. The Minister said:

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.

What were these views? Why are we not informed as to what these views were? How can we conduct a debate unless we know what the experts think of the inter-departmental working party's recommendations? The Parliamentary Secretary said:

The Government consider that the arguments in favour of vesting the main control functions that the Bill proposes in local authorities are entirely conclusive.

This is what the Parliamentary Secretary says, but what are the arguments? Where are they? What are the arguments against the proposals? Where is the money to come from to establish laboratories at the behest of every local authority? Where is the money to staff these laboratories with technicians and supervisory technicians and analysts? If local authorities are to be free to prosecute under the Bill— as they are now; this is no disimprovement in that sense—what court will consider evidence except from those who are suitably qualified?

Our national problem is being brought home to us forcibly every day. We have reversed the trend that began with the famine. We are at the beginning of a growth in population. Instead of celebrating that and seeing in it a new dynamism, which if properly handled, properly monitored, properly guided could transform our country, we are turning it into a miserable, dismaying problem that we think, on the basis of our past experience, we can never solve.

The number of working people who have to support dependants here is the highest in Europe, but our population growth is also the highest in Europe. We must foresee a figure of 30,000 nett extra people in manufacturing employment if we are to have full employment in ten years, which was our original objective. I think this is an overestimate of the requirement but I agree with what Senator Dolan said with regard to the potential in growth of employment in services—and the toursist industry must be seen as one of the great growth areas if we can maintain stability and the type of society that we have that attracts people. Among he factors which will be attractive to the tourist is the ability to fish. Let us not talk about fishing rights and the duke and his ghillie. All forms of water recreation involve pure water; therefore, pure water is a fundamental objective to be attained by the best means available. Among our problems are these: we must be extremely prudent and careful about the use of our resources. I wish every newspaper printed daily on the front page: "In Ireland, as distinct from the United Kingdom, the average per capita income is only £70, compared to their £100”. Therefore, our resources are limited and we must manage them all the more skilfully and carefully.

I see lurking behind the section requiring local authorities to put their house in order, to curb their flow of effluent, the question of the ability to finance it. Why put an obligation on them that on a date unspecified they must provide all these things? We do not know when this Bill will come into force: somebody should tell us. It may never become law if an order has to be made making it a law when it is enacted, if I read the Bill correctly. How slow will the Minister be to do this, if the result is that money will have to be provided out of public funds to set up laboratories suitably staffed in 26 or more local authorities all over the country?

The Parliamentary Secretary has said that examination has been made of the different systems in various countries. I would like to know the result of that examination. In the United Kingdom there is a water council to co-ordinate all water managements. I would like to see this Bill amended so as to give to an established body, with access to the skill of which there is a limited amount available, the power itself to licence. Or at least this body should be technically so equipped that they would specify the qualities to be attained on a statutory basis before the Minister made the orders with which people engaged in either agricultural or industrial development would have to comply.

The Parliamentary Secretary fairly said in his small revelation in regard to the comments made on the working group's recommendations submitted by a number of interested bodies that these views were carefully considered. If the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government can have the opportunity of considering them why cannot we have the same opportunity when we are considering a Bill enacting some but not all of the provisions of the inter-departmental committee's report?

The Parliamentary Secretary said that, while there was general agreement on the type of measures needed to control water pollution, there was and may still be some difference of opinion on the issue of who should administer the new controls. I am sure there was a great difference of opinion. No matter how conclusive the conclusion of the Government may have been, a conclusion is as good as the arguments on which that conclusion is reached and no better.

Admittedly, the working group came out in favour of controls at local level. But there are alternatives. Some people favour control by a national board, others by regional or river authorities. My own view with regard to what is proposed on this aspect is that it is a totally untenable position to have local authorities exempted from requirements. The section dealing with local authorities is so wide open that I could see myself talking about it here in ten years' time —assuming I was still here—and that section might not have been operated. It is an untenable position that local authorities which themselves pour effluent into rivers or harbours should be prosecuting somebody who is giving employment to perhaps 2,000 people and that these authorities should be empowered after the third year to change a licence which has been granted. This situation should be changed.

Could I explain why I think this general debate on environment and preservational development unnaturally puts one group against another? I do not want to argue that the lamb should lie down with the lion and feel entirely safe in yielding to the blandishments of the lion; but as regards the sort of society we wish to create I think the national interest is united.

It will be in our interest—putting it on a grossly material basis—to attract tourists. That is a conservative point of view and when people talk about others being conservative, there are all sorts of conservatives. Some conservatives must be very progressive and active to conserve and preserve things that are worth conserving and preserving, and the purity and tenderness of our waters is one of these. That is merely for the tourists coming in, to provide us with income which makes it possible for our children to obtain employment—those 20,000 extra jobs a year—and create demand for the products of Irish industry. But the very enjoyment of life by our people will be involved. The attractiveness of this place as one in which to invest can be greater if we preserve some of our waters which—I am thinking of the Donegal region—are I understand, among the purest in all Europe.

Coming late to the industrial game we can learn from other people's mistakes. It is interesting to note that one of the Acts we are repealing is the River Pollution Act, 1876. So, a hundred years ago we began to think there might be a pollution problem. I should imagine it was the men with the fishing rights who got that piece of legislation through.

Could I explain the problem of somebody who is thinking of setting up a business here? I do not at all think purely in terms of foreign industrialists who have provided a dynamic element in our development in the last 15 to 20 years, but we may well have to think of activating our domestic savings by a suitable scheme. One of the things I have often been asked by foreigners is: "What is to be our position in regard to environmental control?" They know that environmental control should exist in any sophisticated society and should match the needs of the people. All I could say up to this was: "It depends on what the planning authorities will say is required and I think they will be affected by what the Industrial Development Authority will require." I could not give them a clear statement as to what they had to comply with and attain as a basis on which they could measure out the cost of the operation for them. If there was a central authority specifying the environmental requirements this would meet the position. The Americans, in particular, love to see the legislation to see what their rights are and what it will cost them and what their obligations are. Very often these people have a half-a-dozen options before them when they are considering the location of a new industry. They become very dissatisfied if they do not know clearly how they will be fixed. The Minister has come out very quickly with the finding in relation to the Dublin Bay refinery project and that is good.

I agree with what Senator Deasy said about the impact of this on the farmer because, as the Parliamentary Secretary will know, slurry is only pumped eventually into rivers that are controlled. There is no control at all in this Bill in the case of the farmer who spreads his slurry at inappropriate times—or appropriate according to the view he takes—so that the water washes it off to the river. I recognise also the difficulties in enforcing control. The Parliamentary Secretary is probably right when he says that it is only through the agricultural advisory service and the education of the people concerned that this kind of problem can be solved.

Those who have to report our proceedings here in the morning paper find that if they do not get their material out in time the people will not read what we said here today. If there is a date line it must be complied with unless there is some tolerance with regard to the date line, as I suspect there may be in certain situations. Assuming we are going to be stuck with the local authorities operating this spread-out machinery, dispersed manpower and skill, there is a right of appeal but there is no time limit on when the Minister may decide. I know that if I were able, and if I say to people who who would look to me for information: "There is no time limit; I will tell you in 1990" they would then go off to somebody who would tell them in 1976. We are the Legislature; we enact the laws. The Executive propose the laws to us. The Executive may not like some of the obligations of the laws. I suggest we impose on the Minister and his advisers an obligation to make up his mind on an appeal within a specified time. If we do not, we may stop projects which will not go on because the promoters will not wait indefinitely. Other things quite unconnected with Ireland happen when time is passing. A decision which is being made in favour of Ireland for a development is changed and the project is lost. The quicker the standards are discoverable either by publication or from a central authority, the better.

I would favour, though I am not an administrative person, the advice of some central authority. The fact that these regulations are discoverable and changeable from time to time is important. They must change because there are technological changes affecting the effluent itself. There will be increases in knowledge as to the effect of it, whether the effluent is changed in nature or not. There will be the general impact of a development on the people.

In this House there were times when everybody thought you could spend money on anything and Senator Russell and I always said that there was a limit to the resources available whether you were referring to the city and state of New York or Ireland in a very bad depression. There is always the limitation: you have to make a choice. At this moment we have a situation in which we know we will have a growing population that we know will have to be housed when they grow up and marry. It will be a national defeat of the first order if emigration starts again. It would have appallingly bad consequences on the people who remain. We know these things. We know that they will need new schools and better facilities. We know our resources are limited. We know that the sewage and sanitary problem will be aggravated by the additional accommodation required.

At this moment domestic savings are at an extraordinary high level. There may be technical difficulties in the matter of borrowing in the sense of the ratio that is to be preserved between the level of national borrowing and the gross national product of last year. But at this moment launching expenditure, financed by savings that are positively bulging out of the banks, to provide employment that would generate income which would provide revenue and come in relief with the Exchequer would surely be justified. It would be, to a large degree, self-financing and would provide for a future when we know that all those things will be needed.

I do not know who made the decision about the £20 million Grand Canal scheme but it was a good decision. That, with the developments in Ringsend and Poolbeg will greatly reduce the amenity problem created by the disregard of this problem over the previous 20 years. Dublin Bay was one of our great glories from the point of view of the enjoyment of it by people who came to, or who lived in Dublin. We should not regard the sums involved in coping with the Clondalkin Paper Mill effluent coming into the Camac and polluting the Liffey as anything other than creating wealth for the people even if it does not generate immediate cash. Schemes like this should now be considered to put people to work. This can be done without any foreign borrowing. I would face the consequences of looking at the EEC Commission in a slightly repentant and explanatory mood with far greater heart than I look at the consequences of people unemployed who could be doing good work for the future of the country and for the future of their children. In relation to this Bill I mean by that that the licensing should be taken away from the local authority and given to some central group or regional group advised by a central group. The local authorities should be told: "You have got such and such a period of time to put your house in order. Here is a new scheme financed which should be well presented to the people which is going to be for the investors' benefit and the benefit of their children. Their savings being eroded in the bank by inflation are not going to be much good to them."

There is provision in this Bill for prosecutions by no less than three different authorities for breaches. That does not make any sense. In relation to a new industry, Governments should consider, as they do in regard to their own manpower, the proper utilisation of manpower in the new industry, so that their work is worth while and properly directed. There will be communications to the boards of conservators, to the local authorities, to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Any one of the three can prosecute. Any one of the three can make entry at any time, apparently, although, I presume reasonable times will be inserted in the order.

With regard to the effectiveness of the prosecution, there is to be a presumption that what is certified to be the result of the analysis of a sample taken is correct. There is no provision such as there is in the UK that, when the inspector of the water authority comes in and takes a sample, he must divide it into three parts and give one to the intended accused, so that the intended accused can find out what answer has he got. In this case the public authority take the sample. There is no obligation to give any part of it to the alleged offender. Is that fair? Is that the Just Society we looked for—that the presumption should be in favour of the authority without any obligation on the authority to provide the persons alleged to have committed these environmental offences with a sample. I do not think it is fair and I suggest it ought to be amended.

I have covered a good deal of what I wanted to say, but I would not like to end on a note which did not recognise something I think ought to be recognised. I am sure it may even lie behind the reason the Government, or the Department, have advised the Minister that the system of planning permissions has worked reasonably well. Indeed it has, and it is right that I should say it. In fact, since about 1970, when there was an increasing awareness that you could get industry at too great an ultimate cost to the people, there has been an increasing tendency for the planning authority to specify what advice it has got in regard to what should be done by the company proposed to be set up. Of course, both new and existing industries have found themselves in the position in the last five or six years, particularly the last three—and I am not saying that for a political reason but it happens to be true—that the Industrial Development Authority will not give grants to new industry and will not assist in the adaptation and re-equipment of old ones unless they can comply as far as possible with environmental requirements.

In a situation where there was no legislation the answer one had to give people was, "Look, the planning authority are sensible. They are aware of the problem and concerned about it. The same applies to the IDA and the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards." In the context of what I have said before, to some extent the work of these bodies has been anticipating the solution of the problem which has been raised for public debate, properly raised for public debate here. But the debate is insufficiently informed about the nature of the criticisms. First, there is the inter-departmental committee's report. We do not know their recommendations. But many of these people must come from semi-Government bodies and therefore they are not buccaneers like ourselves who can say what we like. Their recommendations should be published. We should know what these criticisms are. We should know what the problems are in full dimension. If it is a question of cost, let us say it and let us know it.

The fact that industrial pollution has to a very great extent been improved should be noted, though there are limitations. Senator Russell, coming from an area where there is a lot of old industries, is aware of it. It is all very well if you are looking for a re-equipment grant and are told that you will get it if you provide for the effluent resulting from the expansion involved. If I am informed correctly about Limerick, there are 40 separate outlets pouring effluent into the waters in the area. At least, Senator Russell said so. You see the nature of the problem. It is very important.

I will be saying a lot more on Committee Stage. I will just mention one thing of purely academic interest. Are there enormous problems in defining the sea, or is it simply good sense in not to having regard to the Law of the Sea Conference? It is not in the Interpretation Act. It had been defined in various statutes in different countries. It would be useful for us, I think, to know. Should there not be a definition of the sea? Should we not look at it and perhaps have a lengthy debate on the definition section on Committee Stage and have a look at the words which appear throughout?

I should like to take this opportunity of welcoming this Bill. It is a Bill we ought to have had many years ago. We are inclined to credit ourselves with having clean rivers and waterways. We are entitled to do that because our country is largely undeveloped industrially, although it is well developed agriculturally. We have a considerable amount of pollution at present. I suppose it is not reasonable to expect that this Bill could solve all the problems. These problems could have been solved before now and ought to be solved from now on if we use our workforce properly. Many of our towns and cities still discharge untreated sewage into our rivers. This was not dealt with in the past because we had not the necessary legislation. In some cases the will was not there either.

The authorities should take a serious look at this problem and do something about it. I know it costs money, but it would create employment and use our raw materials. The local authorities should not be the ones to grant licences. While they may not be the major offenders, they offend in one way or another. Therefore it would be hard to expect them to enforce the law when they are infringing it themselves.

A considerable amount of pollution of our waterways is due to the new methods of agriculture. The major portion of this pollution cannot be solved by any Bill. The rain falls onto the land. In earlier years the run-off from the land was pure and did not harm our streams. Because of intensive agricultural production a considerable amount of artificial manure is being used. Nobody notices this. If you are passing along the country in a car you do not notice that artificial manure has been spread. It does not offend your sense of smell and therefore goes unnoticed. This concentrated manure gets into our rivers and streams and causes a considerable amount of damage. No matter what laws we introduce it will not improve this position. It is something that scientists will have to have a look at. I am sure it is being considered by scientists all over the world because many of the problems we are experiencing here are being experienced in other countries as well.

There is no easy answer to this. When somebody refers to the fact that the law in relation to agriculture is not severe enough, I do not accept this. A lot has been done up to now to minimise the amount of slurry and silage effluent going into our rivers. In fact very little, if any, gets in because it is in the farmer's interest to ensure that slurry is available for the farm. It may be offensive to your sense of smell, but it is doing less damage than artificial manure. The farmer in his own interest will ensure that available manure is kept and spread on the land. The laws in relation to pig stations, creameries and so on are fairly strict at present. Most of our advance in these matters has been made during the last few years. The laws are there to ensure that pollution will not occur. People engaged in the production of pigs on a large scale must ensure before they get a licence that they have either enough land to spread the slurry on or a proper disposal unit.

I should like to refer to a matter which is of concern to a lot of people in my area: the pollution in Lough Derg. It is one of the finest lakes in Europe and a lot of damage has been done already. Much of the damage has been done by those people I have referred to already, and it is not easy to do much about it. Lough Derg was clear a few years ago but now in the summertime the water is green. Many people who used to swim there do not like to do so anymore because you need a bath after swimming in Lough Derg. A lot of pollution in Lough Derg is due to the run-off of artificial manure into our rivers and streams, which eventually finds its way to Lough Derg. There is not much we can do at present but future scientific knowledge may help.

We should do something with regard to peat pollution of the lake. The production of peat is one of our biggest industries, an industry that has done a lot of useful work and gives a lot of employment. I refer to Bord na Móna. I do not know whether research was done into the pollution caused by using milled peat, but it is evident that this is the most damaging way of using peat. It powders up and is blown by the wind into rivers and streams. It goes down-stream and settles in Lough Derg.

All of the Shannon from the midlands, where the inlets from the bogs are, down to the upper half of Lough Derg is dead as far as fishing is concerned. There are no fish there and it is moving further down Lough Derg every year. In the Portumna area there was always very good fishing. There is no fishing there any more, even on some of the strand you can see where peat has been washed up. I accept that this has happened. The people concerned with tourism in that area would be quite prepared to accept that it has happened provided this was publicly acknowledged by the authorities responsible for it and some effort made to ensure that it did not get any worse and that it would be improved in the future.

Bord na Móna may have come up with the answer and perhaps it may be that all that is needed is settling ponds for the silt before it gets into Lough Derg. We have plenty of space to make these ponds. We have plenty of sand and cement, if that is what is needed. Our unemployed would be glad to work. Even if it does cost a lot to maintain silting plants, this is something that should be seriously looked at. A few years ago, Bord na Móna found it difficult to sell their produce in competition with coal and oil. Now the situation has changed. It was a liability on the ESB to use the product of our bogs when oil was plentiful and cheap. Now oil is very dear and the produce of our bogs is very competitive for the ESB. There is no reason why, with this change in the financial circumstances of Bord na Móna, a considerable amount of money should not have been set aside to ensure that the pollution was lessened or stopped. Now they propose to develop further bogs in that area and on the western side of the Shannon, and they have already made arrangements to ensure that it will not happen there. They have made arrangements to provide a new source of water for one town.

It is right to look back on the harm that has been done and to ensure that it will not continue to happen. Lough Derg is one of our finest lakes, probably the finest lake in Europe, extensively used by people for swimming, boating and so on. The fish life is destroyed there. Nothing has been done about it. We are told that teams of officials are looking after it, taking measurements. We do not need this. All you need to do is to walk by the lake and you can see what is happening. All you need to do is go down to the lake in summertime and see the colour of the water. This will have to be tackled. We have the manpower and the native materials and we should have the will.

I do not mean to imply that Bord na Móna have done a bad job. They have done quite a good job. They have given a lot of employment and produced a lot of material for use by the ESB. The ESB have been doing a good job in so far as our fisheries are concerned. They continue to restock our lakes and rivers. The source of the problem is our main waterway. Peat pollution is causing a huge problem there. It needs to be seriously looked at. If this debate does no more than highlight this problem then it will be doing a useful job. That is my main interest at this stage.

I welcome the Bill. We should have had it earlier, but better late than never. I should like the Minister to particularly consider the items I have raised with regard to Lough Derg to see if anything can be done to improve the position that obtains there.

I welcome the Bill. It is long overdue because we have been operating on laws which are antediluvian as regards pollution. Pollution has in recent years become a commonplace word—20 years ago it was hardly ever used—but so has the word "industrialisation". We need to ensure that, in promoting industry, we will not sacrifice our national heritage, which embraces pure air, green grass and clear water. Are we going to sacrifice this heritage on the altar of employment? A clear line of demarcation must be used and we must get our priorities straight.

I welcome the Bill for many reasons. I welcome it particularly because the Minister is going to impose realistic penalties. Heretofore, an industry could be fined a nominal sum of £50 or £100, which was ludicrous. The difference between the installation cost of anti-pollution devices, or whatever machinery that would have to be installed to alleviate pollution from any particular industry, and the maximum fine is enormous. The fine for a first industrial offence, or even an agricultural offence, should be at least £1,000 and for a second and third £2,000. This is a very serious problem. We speak of Ireland as a tourist country. We advertise lavishly in every country in the world our fishing, hunting and shooting. We cannot fish in polluted water because there are no fish to fish. It is as easy as that.

The definition of pollution under the archaic Act was that it was deleterious matter, that is, any substance, either liquid or gas, which was harmful to fish or the food of fish. We must get a definition of pollution which will cover all modern pollutants. This would embrace the disposal of disused cars and of plastic containers of all descriptions. The Slaney is, perhaps, one of our finest fishing rivers. Within less than 30 yards of the main road, there are up to 40 disused car bodies dumped in that river. Perhaps car bodies do not create pollution. I do not know whether they rust or disintegrate sufficiently to kill fish, but nevertheless they are unsightly objects in a river as important to our national fishing industry as the Slaney.

We have been far too lenient. I disagree with the idea of planning authorities having the final say in this because they have been and are at present some of the biggest offenders with regard to pollution. In recent times, since the passing of the Planning Act, 1963, much more care has been given to the disposal of sewage. We have got to deal with those towns and villages where sewerage systems are still leaving something to be desired. To give the final say to the planning authority would be like going to law with the devil and holding the court in Hell. I would hope, as Senator FitzGerald has pointed out, there would be a three-way system with regard to the enforcement of penalties.

I agree with the promotion of agriculture in all it facets, but I do believe —and I withdraw it if my information is not correct—that the pollution from one silage pit is equivalent to the pollution from a town with a population of 12,000 people. If that figure is correct, I would hate to think of the amount of pollution that is being created in all our rivers. Many silage pits have been established on farms throughout the country, and planning permission was not sought for some of them. In fact, it is just a case of establishing a silage pit on any disused corner of the farm, irrespective of where the effluent is going to go. This is vitally important and must be tackled.

I welcome the Bill. I hope that when it becomes law any infringement of it will be dealt with as severely as possible.

I welcome the Bill. I did not intend to speak on it because sufficient has been said on it already, but I feel it is only right that some member of the agricultural community should reply to some of the statements made today. What I have to say deals with agricultural pollution only.

The last speaker stated that one silage pit can do as much harm as a town with a population of 12,000. I do not know where the Senator got this information but I doubt that it is true. I do not think anyone would believe it. The Senator mentioned that farmers did not care where they built silage pits. That is true. Farmers did not need to get planning permission and they still do not need it. I never agreed with that because farmers are inclined to build pits near public roads and, if nothing else, these pits are unsightly. However, that situation has been rectified to a certain extent because a grant will not be given to build a silage pit unless a septic tank is built as well. I know that a septic tank could also be built on the side of the road and that would create further problems but at least any silage pit now being built will not pollute rivers because a septic tank must be provided.

Senator FitzGerald spoke about farmers spraying liquid fertilisers. He implied that some of this fertiliser was washed away and eventually entered the rivers. I do not agree with that because liquid fertiliser is not a heavy spray and could not be washed away. It is a mistaken idea held by many people that artificial fertilisers sprayed on the land eventually seep into the rivers. I do not believe that. Artificial fertilisers are expensive and they are spread only at a ratio of three or five cwts to the acre. There is no doubt there could be seepage into rivers from pig stations but, on the whole, the amount of pollution caused by the agricultural sector is very small.

I should like to welcome this Bill. In regard to the timing of the Bill, the circumstances in which it has been introduced and the course it should follow in its general application, planning for anti-pollution methods and devices, whether in industry or in agriculture, is something which has become necessary in the recent past. That being so, additional requirements should be associated with education rather than with the provision of penalties as a deterrent to people who might transgress the law.

As far as the agricultural community are concerned, every Member of this House who has an agricultural background will be able to recall silage pits located on river banks. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries paid grants for these pits. It was only in more recent times it dawned on departmental officials that silage pits were a source of pollution, a danger to fish life and to cattle drinking polluted water, to say nothing of pollution seeping into wells from which domestic water supplies were taken. These are some of the problems of water pollution with which everybody has become acquainted in the last eight to ten years. It follows inevitably that, with the greater use of silage and greater industrialisation generally, more pollution will occur and so the protection of our water supplies has become an urgent necessity.

The Minister has taken the right course in this matter. In order to ensure that penalties will not be incurred as a result of this Bill, those who might possibly transgress, be they farmers or anybody else will now be put on notice that a very rigid code has been laid down to control pollution from whatever source.

I welcome the Bill and wish the Parliamentary Secretary success with it.

First, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my sincere and grateful thanks to Senators for their contributions to the Bill. I am pleased that this legislation has received a general welcome.

It has been said this legislation is long overdue. I do not dispute that, but Senators will recall that three years ago, when the National Coalition Government took office, they planned a detailed policy in relation to the environment. Certain priorities had to be laid down in implementing that environmental policy. First, the Government had to deal with planning. Local Government Planning legislation came before the Dáil and the Seanad. Then, in order to keep to priorities, it was necessary to introduce this Bill dealing with water pollution. There is great need for this Bill. I was pleased to hear so many Senators express their views in relation to the importance of this Bill. I appreciate the variety of expressions of opinion. I know that to cover all aspects of the Bill on Second Reading is almost impossible but there will be an opportunity on the Committee Stage for examining it in detail and I assure Senators that any amendments they submit will be fully considered.

It is correct to say that the control of water pollution will require a tremendous amount of co-operation from all sections of the community, from the industrialist, the farmer, local authorities and so on. But, even if we have their full co-operation, we will also require the support, sympathy and vigilance of all the people.

Questions were raised by Senators with regard to the position of local authorities. In my opinion the local authorities are the proper authorities to implement these provisions. If we were to establish new catchment boards, regional boards or a national board to deal with the problem of water pollution we would have to start from scratch. In local authorities a structure already exists with engineering staff and other technical advisers. It is right, therefore, that local authorities should have full control and be responsible for licensing.

The Government are pledged to give greater responsibility to local authorities. It is our policy to encourage local authorities to take more responsibility and so we are making them responsible for licensing and for other controls under this legislation. They will become more involved. The elected representatives will be in close touch with the public and they are fully alert to the seriousness of the problem of water pollution. They will be quick to observe pollution by obnoxious discharges into rivers and lakes. It is essential that this responsibility should be given to local authorities. With sincere, genuine activity and zeal there will be a marked improvement in the position.

I assure Senators that no time will be lost in giving effect to this Bill. Senator West said that environmental legislation was not given the degree of importance to which it was entitled so I am concerned that this Bill should be on the Statute Book with the least possible delay, together with the Planning Bill which has had its Second Reading in the House. When we are dealing with the environment it is essential that we should deal with every aspect of it. Indeed there is a need for even wider legislation to deal with environmental problems. We have for example a serious litter and waste problem.

Senator Aherne referred to the cleaning of beaches, removing litter and broken glass from them and making them safe and attractive. She also referred to the problem of sewage and polluted water flowing on to beaches. It is vital that this should be remedied. The Senator spoke about Ballyheigue and Ballybunion. Unfortunately the same conditions prevail on a number of our beaches. Something will have to be done to improve the situation.

It is important from the point of view of improving our environment that in new housing schemes electric cables should be placed underground as far as possible. If finances permit, telephone cables in both new and old housing areas should also be put underground, if possible. There must be an energetic drive to keep our country clean and tidy to ensure a clean and healthy environment.

It is tragic to read of the damage done by pollution to our rivers and lakes. We have some of the best coarse fishing in Europe. Some of our best salmon fisheries are in the south. We also have excellent trout fisheries. It is nothing short of criminal the way in which stocks have been on occasion wiped out by pollution. The Inland Fisheries Trust have done a tremendous amount of work in stocking our lakes and rivers and the expenditure involved has been considerable. Tourists, particularly the French, are attracted here to enjoy our fishing facilities but, because of carelessness and neglect, because of the poisoning of our waters, we are in danger of losing the much needed business generated by these visitors. It is regrettable that because of carelessness we should deprive ourselves of the great benefits that should accrue from our fisheries. It is time an effort was made to put a stop to this pollution.

Local authorities will be the best people to deal with the situation. Members of county councils and county borough councils will not be slow in reporting to the responsible local authority officer if fisheries are injured or the facilities available are damaged in any way and suitable action will follow.

I agree with Senator Walsh that the penalties provided can be regarded as more severe than those we have had in the past. Senator Walsh thinks they should be more severe. I sympathise with the Senator because quite an amount of this pollution can be prevented and steps will have to be taken against those who continue to pollute our waters. It is not true to say the local authorities will be subject to no control under the Bill. The Bill will enable the Minister to impose standards governing discharge from local authority sewerage systems and the local authorities will be legally obliged to comply with any such standards.

Many Senators have stated that local authorities are themselves the greatest offenders. That may or may not be, but it should be borne in mind that many older sewerage schemes have recently had treatment facilities provided. Improvements are in progress or in planning in other cases. Senator Keegan referred to a case in Mullingar and I would like to inform him here that improvements were carried out there. As time goes on the situation will be more satisfactory.

In 1972-73 £8 million was provided for sanitary services. That figure has increased to £19 million in the current financial year. There are proposals in the Department of Local Government which when put into effect will be of tremendous assistance to local authorities in solving this problem of pollution.

I would like now to refer to the water pollution advisory council. The council have performed an outstanding service in this regard. They have given consideration to the question of an educational programme, with suitable publicity, aimed at creating greater public awareness of the need to prevent water pollution. Publicity projects already undertaken by the council include the provision of the stand at the recent RDS Spring Show. I am sure many Senators who visited the Spring Show took great interest and pride in that stand. I have already paid tribute to the water advisory council for their foresight in providing such an attractive stand, a stand which created such interest. The uses and abuses of our water resources were illustrated. An anti-pollution poster slogan competition was also promoted for schoolchildren and that competition generated immense enthusiasm among the younger generation. Over 1,700 entries were received. That shows the younger people are actively concerned with this problem of pollution.

Reference has also been made to the question of industrial pollution. Industrialists usually take every possible precaution to ensure that pollution is avoided and, when this Bill is passed, I am sure there will be greater co-operation between industrialists and the local authority representatives and officials. I am sure many of the problems that now exist will be solved.

The Industrial Development Authority, through the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, carried out a survey of pollution in Ireland. The following is an extract from page 6 of an edited form of the survey published in April, 1976:

The adequate and satisfactory disposal of piped sewerage will improve substantially when work on schemes now under construction is completed. Then more than 88 per cent of the country's domestic sewerage will be disposed of without any threat to our natural water resources.

That report is encouraging and this Bill will be instrumental in bringing about a satisfactory solution. This legislation is not alone desirable but should have outstanding beneficial results for the future.

I wish to express thanks to the Senators for the common-sense manner in which they have approached this problem and for the tributes they paid to the Bill. It is encouraging that the Bill should receive such a welcome from both sides of the House. It is not possible to go into all the points raised but I will give them full consideration. I am not dealing with the special or individual areas of pollution mentioned. We have them all over the country and it would not be right for me to mention one without mentioning all. Pollution is a very serious problem and the co-operation of every local authority and, above all, of the general public is essential in solving the problem.

I have no hesitation in saying that I am sure many Senators feel there is room for improvement in this Bill. We will have an opportunity, of course, of dealing with it in greater detail on the Committee Stage. I strongly recommend this Bill to the House. If Senators have any strong views on any aspect of the Bill there is nothing to prevent them putting down suitable amendments. I want to assure Senators that all information which they may require about any aspect of the Bill will be made available to them in order to reinforce them in the knowledge that this legislation is both necessary and desirable. I agree it is overdue but something is now being done to solve this important problem, something recognised as a matter of the greatest possible urgency.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 2nd June, 1976.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.30 p.m.sine die.
Barr
Roinn