Tá áthas orm an deis a bheith agam an Bille seo a chuir ós comhair an tSeanaid. Sé aidhm an Bhille ná cumhachtaí níos láidre a chur ar fáil chun maoin nádurtha saibhre na tíre seo a chosaint agus a chaomhnú. Ní fhéadfar a shéanaon ach go gcuirfidh an Bille seo le h-éifeachtacht an fheachtais i gcoinne truailliú uisce agus go bhfeabhsófar staid ár n-uiscí dá bharr. Tá súil agam, dá bhrí sin, go bhfáilteoidh an Tigh leis.
The purpose of this Bill is to strengthen the controls on water pollution contained in the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977 and the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959. It forms a key element of a comprehensive programme of measures to combat water pollution which was adopted by the Government in November 1987. It is appropriate, therefore, that before dealing with the specific provisions of the Bill itself I should discuss briefly some of the wider issues involved.
Water pollution is not a new phenomenon in Ireland. Over 150 years ago, for example, commissioners of inquiry into the state of Irish fisheries heard evidence in various parts of the country about discharges to rivers from dye-houses, tanneries and other forms of industry which were having very injurious effects on salmon and other fish. Growing concern about the effects of water pollution in the 19th century led to the enactment of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts in 1876 and 1893. However, because Ireland was not a highly urbanised and industrialised country, water pollution did not pose a major problem until the sixties when we experienced rapid development of industry, major growth of urban centres, and the development of intensive agriculture.
In 1971 a national survey of water quality revealed that while Ireland's waters were in the main unpolluted, some 7 per cent of them were seriously polluted. This disturbing finding indicated a need for a more comprehensive approach to water pollution control. Accordingly, an interdepartmental committee was established to investigate the nature and extent of the problem, the adequacy of the existing legislative controls and the need for fresh legislation. The committee's recommendations led to the first comprehensive legislative response to the problem in the form of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977. That Act provided for the introduction of a system of licensing controls for trade effluent discharges as a means of tackling the pollution problems posed by industry. It also gave local authorities a wide range of powers to control pollution from diffuse sources — powers which have been used extensively by local authorities and to great effect.
In particular, section 12 of the Act, which provides for the issue of notices requiring measures to be taken to prevent water pollution, has proved to be a most useful tool in the hands of the local authorities in their ongoing efforts to eliminate the problem. However, the high number of serious water pollution incidents which occurred in the summer of 1987 indicated that some strengthening of the law was needed and that the controls on pollution from diffuse sources, in particular, needed to be extended. I am confident that the House will agree that the present Bill is an appropriate response to this need.
The fallacious notion that Ireland's waters are now very polluted has gained surprisingly wide currency. I want to knock this firmly on the head as it could do tremendous damage to our country were it to be believed abroad. It cannot be restated too often or too strongly that Ireland's waters are amongst the cleanest in Europe. The most recent survey of national water quality published in 1987 revealed that 74 per cent of Irish waters were unpolluted while a mere 2 per cent were seriously polluted. The percentage of waters which is seriously polluted has dropped from 7 per cent to 2 per cent since 1971. The bathing waters monitored for compliance with our stringent national bathing water quality standards have also proved to be of exceptionally high quality. Our major problems as regards water pollution are the incidence of slight and moderate pollution, and the need to control once-off pollution incidents such as fish kills which can have dramatic effects and which, if not effectively tackled, could distort the overall picture in relation to water quality here, with serious consequences for tourism and our economy generally.
Another notion that needs to be dealt with is the idea that central and local government are not serious about dealing with water pollution. This notion crops up in many different forms. One reads, for example, that only a handful of people are available to deal with pollution. The fact is that, excluding the pollution officers employed by the fishery boards, local authorities have 62 engineers, 70 technicians and 15 chemists employed primarily on water pollution control activities, together with 16 technicians engaged on hydrometric work which is essential to the control of pollution. In addition, 71 local authority administrative staff committed 32 man years to water pollution control activities in 1987. The large number of staff deployed on these activities by local authorities, at a time when there is pressure on financial resources and a decline in overall public service numbers, is a clear reflection of a real commitment to protecting our water resources.
I want also to deal with the allegation that local authorities themselves are the biggest polluters or that local authorities are above the law. The facts again tell a different story. Local authorities can be and are prosecuted by the fisheries boards if they are guilty of pollution. It is important to note, however, that of the fish kills caused annually only a small fraction are caused by local authority discharges. For instance, of the 44 fish kills recorded in 1988, only one was caused by a sewage discharge.
I believe that water pollution control functions can be carried out effectively at local level, that local authorities are ideally placed to evaluate the risks to water resources and to plan appropriate response measures and that the authorities have demonstrated in recent times that they have the ability and the determination to carry out these tasks satisfactorily.
As part of their pollution control functions, local authorities must ensure that the waste disposal systems which they operate and maintain are run to the highest possible standards and, when necessary, that capital investment is undertaken to remedy deficiencies in existing systems. The need for local authorities to pay particular attention to this matter was specifically brought to their attention by my Department in 1988 and each authority was issued with guidelines and advice on the key areas of sewage treatment to which they should give regular and detailed attention. In addition, the local authorities have, at my Department's request, identified the individual sewage discharges which are contributing to pollution and this information is being taken into account in planning the overall sanitary services programme.
In recent years, considerable amounts of capital have been devoted to providing and upgrading local authority sewage treatment and disposal facilities. Since 1980, nearly £300 million has been invested by local authorities for this purpose, using finance made available by my Department and, as a result, considerable progress has been made in eliminating pollution black spots. New sewage treatment plants have been provided in towns such as Portlaoise, Fermoy, Carlow, Malahide, Swords, Killarney, Ardee, Listowel, Cavan, Tullamore, Newcastlewest and Blessington to mention but a few. This programme of action to tackle pollution from municipal sources has borne results: water quality surveys show a significant reduction in serious pollution of rivers and streams since 1971 and much of this reduction is directly linked to the investment which has been made.
In 1989, over £62 million is being provided for the sanitary services capital programme. This provision will allow us to fund work in progress, including some important pollution abatement schemes, as well as giving sufficient scope to approve new urgently needed schemes. In deciding on schemes to go to construction in this and the coming years, the House may be assured that due weight will be given to the importance of building on the progress already made and ensuring that local authorities are enabled to play their full part in the drive against water pollution.
In addition to pursuing national priorities, we are fully committed to the implementation of European Community's water pollution directives. In 1988 alone, I made three sets of regulations giving full effect in Irish law to the bathing water, fresh water fish and drinking water directives. Last year, I increased the number of beaches monitored for compliance with the national bathing water quality standards from seven to 52 and I have recently consulted local authorities on the question of bringing other beaches within the regulations.
Looked at in the European context, we are one of the few countries lucky enough to have waters which are to a large extent unpolluted. The Government intend to ensure that this continues to be so. That is why the present Bill is, as I have already said, but one element of a national programme of measures to combat water pollution. Already much of the programme, which was formulated as a response to the high number of serious water pollution incidents in the summer of 1987, has been implemented with very satisfactory results. The programme involved an integrated approach towards the problem of pollution. It ensured that resources were effectively targetted on the areas in most urgent need of attention.
In particular, a great deal of effort was devoted to reducing pollution from diffuse agricultural sources which were the source of a large proportion of the 1987 fish kills. This does not imply that farmers are the only cause of water pollution; on the contrary the programme contained some measures directed at all polluters and some directed solely at industry. For example, all local authorities were requested to review the licences to discharge trade effluents which have been issued under the Water Pollution Act and to issue revised licences, with stricter conditions, where necessary. The programme as a whole set out to address all of the areas where existing controls are insufficient but the main area where this was found to be so was that of pollution from agricultural sources. In this context, it must be remembered that the use of land for agriculture, forestry or horticulture is exempt from planning control and that quite substantial agricultural structures can be erected without planning permission.
The success of the integrated approach adopted in dealing with the problem of water pollution from agricultural sources is already apparent. Measures aimed at the identification of problem farms, measures to assist farmers in making their farms pollution free and activities designed to increase awareness amongst farmers of water pollution were adopted. The farm surveys carried out in each county by multi-disciplinary task forces led by local authorities proved to be a very worthwhile exercise. In 1988, over 12,000 farms in high pollution risk areas were surveyed. Of these. 45 per cent were found to pose a medium to high pollution risk and the local authorities concerned will ensure that the farmers involved take all measures necessary to make these farms risk free. Some local authorities have indicated that they intend to continue with the surveys this year and I have recently asked all local authorities to consider doing so.
To assist farmers in carrying out necessary pollution control works, the Minister for Agriculture and Food negotiated an extension of the western package scheme to cover such works. Farmers in all disadvantaged areas, which comprise nearly three-quarters of all farm land, can now qualify for grants of 55 per cent of the cost of slurry and silage effluent storage facilities. Young farmers can qualify for grants of 69 per cent. So far, over 7,500 applications have been made for such grants.
The activities of ACOT — and now TEAGASC — have played an important role in heightening awareness among the farming community of agricultural pollution and in assisting individual farmers to design and carry through the necessary measures to avoid or eliminate pollution. The establishment of a specialised environmental advisory service by ACOT was a particularly important development as was the organisation's environmental awareness campaign. This was one of the most intensive campaigns ever mounted by the advisory service, involving public seminars and practical demonstrations; open days at agricultural colleges and extensive publicity and media advertising.
Some 300 seminars and practical demonstrations attracted up to 20,000 farmers. Many of these events were held in conjunction with the local authorities and the farming organisations and it is only proper that I should place on record my appreciation of the full co-operation and support which these organisations gave to the campaign. Additionally, 30,000 farmers attended national and regional events at which large-scale pollution control exhibits and demonstrations were staged. A large number of articles and special supplements on environment topics have been published in the national, local and farming press and over 60,000 booklets, leaflets and newsletters were distributed to farmers by the advisory service. In addition, a booklet on farm pollution prepared for the Department of Agriculture and Food in association with my own Department has been distributed free to 200,000 farmers around the country.
Coupled with the increased emphasis on education and awareness activities has been a more vigorous use by local authorities of the enforcement provisions of the Water Pollution Act. The number of prosecutions taken by local authorities under the Act trebled in 1987. While some of this increase can be attributed to the increase in the number of pollution incidents, it also reflects the tougher line being taken by local authorities with offenders, at my request.
While it is still too early to say whether the programme of measures will have a lasting effect, all the information to hand to date indicates that it will. The dramatic drop from 122 to 44 in the number of fish kills recorded in 1988 is a most encouraging result. It is essential, however, that we do not become complacent. While the immediate and most serious threat to our waters has abated somewhat, the need remains to ensure that there is a reduction in the still significant proportion of slightly and moderately polluted waters. This Bill, by providing a more comprehensive and effective legislative basis for action by local authorities and fishery boards will help to meet that need.
The Bill itself is a complex one and I do not propose to attempt a detailed section by section discussion of it at this stage, particularly as an informative explanatory memorandum has been circulated with the Bill. There will, no doubt, be much discussion on individual sections of the Bill on Committee Stage and I wish to assure the House that I will be willing to consider very carefully any amendments which are put forward to improve it. I will confine myself, therefore, to a summary of the main provisions of the Bill. These can be broadly grouped into three categories, namely, those provisions which strengthen the penalties and sanctions for water pollution offences, those provisions which clarify sections of the 1977 Act which, with experience, have been found to need clarification and those provisions which establish new controls on particular forms of pollution.
The increased sanctions and penalties form an important part of this Bill. It is a sad fact of life that research, education and financial assistance on their own will not solve the problem of water pollution. There will always be a hard core of polluters who will only respond to the threat of heavy penalties and sanctions. The principal idea underlying this Bill is that the polluter will pay. To this end, the Bill provides for: an increase in the maximum fine on summary conviction to £1,000 (from £250), the increase to apply to both the Water Pollution and Fisheries Acts; a new maximum penalty of £25,000 on conviction on indictment (increased from £5,000) and/or imprisonment for a period of up to five years instead of two years, the provisions to apply to both the Water Pollution and Fisheries Acts; an amendment of the "good defence" provision in the 1977 Act to put a greater onus on the person charged to prove that he could not reasonably have foreseen that his act or omission would cause pollution of waters and the introduction of a similar good defence provision for offences under section 171 of the Fisheries Act, 1959; the extension to any person of the right to apply to the courts for an order seeking the mitigation or remedying of the effects of a pollution incident, and making explicit provision for remedial measures such as the replacement of fish stocks and the making good of consequential losses suffered by any person or body as as result of the pollution; a new provision under which polluters will have a civil liability for any damage caused by the pollution; specific provision allowing the courts to grant both costs and expenses to local authorities against convicted pollution offenders. In sum, these provisions amount to a strong armoury ranged against the would-be polluter. Where the polluter previously ran the risk of prosecution by local authority and fishery board personnel, he or she will in the future also be liable to be proceeded against for damages by the party concerned. This reflects the Government's desire to make it possible for the ordinary citizen to become involved in pollution control.
Many of the provisions of the Bill are designed to clarify or expand existing provisions of the Water Pollution Act. Principal among these are provisions for: extending the grounds on which a High Court order may be sought to cover situations involving a risk of water pollution; a clarification of a local authority's power to serve notices under section 12 of the 1977 Act regulating practices (such as silage-making and slurry spreading) which, in its opinions, could result in water pollution; a conferring on local and sanitary authorities power to obtain information on water abstractions, discharges to waters and activities or practices which are relevant to their pollution prevention functions. Most of these provisions are fine-tuning provisions and provisions designed to fill lacunae in the 1977 Act which only experience of its operation could have revealed.
Another group of provisions which I wish to mention are those which will enable specific sources of pollution to be controlled more effectively. Three provisions, in particular, are worthy of note.
First, local authorities are being empowered under section 21 to make bylaws regulating or prohibiting specified agricultural activities in their functional areas, or any part thereof, where they consider it necessary to do so in order to eliminate or prevent water pollution. There will be a right of appeal to the Minister who may confirm or annul the by-laws, or direct that they be amended in a specified manner. The Minister may require a local authority to make such by-laws where he believes them to be necessary.
As the House is aware, use of land for horticultural and agricultural activities is exempted from planning control and it would be quite unrealistic to alter this situation on a general basis. However, the new provision will give the local authority or the Minister power to regulate agricultural activities in a specified area if this is necessary to eliminate or prevent water pollution. It is not envisaged that this measure will need to be widely used but it may be necessary to use it where the nature and extent of certain agricultural practices and the preservation of the aquatic environment of the locality in which they are carried out are clearly incompatible.
The second provision I wish to mention is section 22 which will empower local or sanitary authorities to treat each discharge of trade effluent into a private drain as a discharge to a sewer for the purposes of the Act. Up to now, only the combined effluent from the drain could be licensed under the Act and this has led to difficulties in identifying the origin of the particular effluent responsible for a pollution incident.
A third provision which is worthy of mention is contained in sections 5 and 13 which will greatly increase the powers of local authorities to carry out reviews of trade effluent discharge licences. At present, these licences cannot be reviewed within three years of their being granted unless the discharge endangers public health. The new provision will allow local authorities to review licences where the discharge could adversely affect any beneficial uses of the water.
I do not wish to detain the House unduly by dealing with all sections of the Bill individually and this, in any case, would be more appropriate on Committee Stage. I am confident that the House will agree that the Bill will serve to achieve the objective which we all share, that is, to strengthen and clarify the law and ensure that the nation's waters are well protected from pollution. I commend the Bill to the House.
