Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Bill, 1989: Second Stage (Resumed)

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

Mr. McCormack

Níl mé cinnte cén áit a raibh mé nuair a bhí mé ag caint ar an Bhille seo an Déardaoin seo chaite ach tosóidh mé arís inniú.

I welcome the introduction of this Bill in the Seanad and the opportunity to speak on it. I welcome also the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, who is here today to take the Bill on behalf of the Government. I have a few things to say which I hope the Minister will take notice of during the course of my contribution and I will be considering tabling some amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage.

Pollution of all types has been very much in the news in recent times. People generally have become conscious of the dangers of pollution to our countryside, our waterways and our seas. It is a good thing that public awareness has been generated and that most of us have woken up to the obvious dangers, and indeed the hidden dangers, of pollution. Let me if I can reduce it to its simplest. Prevention of pollution is each individual making sure that he or she does not by any act or neglect or carelessness do anything or cause anything to pollute streams, rivers, lakes or seas. If everybody looks after their own area then we will have no pollution. Every farmer, industrialist, house owner, septic tank owner, every local authority and every Government Department, must play their part in avoiding the dangers of pollution. If every individual is determined to avoid pollution of any type in his own locality, local river, lake or sea, then we will have pollution-free waters.

Of course, we need the protection of legislation, and perhaps the threat of large fines may be a help, but we also need to be vigilant that the control of our waterways is not taken away from us because of any activity which would cause pollution of any kind. If every individual in every community protects their lakes, rivers and seas in their own areas, then our waters will be free of pollution.

I will, therefore, deal with my own region, which is the Corrib-Mask and the general Connemara region of County Galway. We have in Galway-Mayo the Corrib-Mask, vast stretches of clean unpolluted water, a gem in the eyes of Europe. The Corrib covers approximately 44,000 acres and the Mask over 20,000 acres. The Corrib-Mask lakes are interconnected with the rivers and numerous small lakes in Connemara and, of course, are also interconnected with the sea through the same system. This vast lake is fed also by the rivers on the eastern side from the farming lands of east Galway and Mayo. This is mainly farming land with agricultural enterprise and we must be constantly vigilant against any type of pollution from that source.

I believe farmers are now more aware than ever of the danger of pollution and the vast majority of them will take all possible steps to ensure that their farming activities will not cause pollution. However, where farmers do not take all the necessary steps to avoid pollution, the rigours of the law should apply. I would like to pose a question arising from paragraph (a) of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill. It states:

an amendment to the "good defence" provision in section 3 (3) of 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 might cause pollution of waters (section 3).

In relation to paragraph (a) of section 3, if a farmer who, say, five years ago erected a silage lay-out and slatted shed on the advice of ACOT advisers and to the regulations set down by the Department at the time and he qualified for a grant under the farm development schemes and that now, five years later, that lay-out is causing pollution to a stream, river or lake, is he exempt from prosecution? Is the fact that his work was passed for grant purposes by the Department proof that he could not reasonably have foreseen that his act or omission might cause pollution of waters as stated under paragraph (a) of section 3? I would like the Minister to respond to that when he is replying to the debate. If such a silage lay-out or slatted shed is in danger of causing pollution, would it be the responsibility of the Department to rectify the situation or would it be the responsibility of the farmer? This should be clarified. Where this arises, the farmer should be grant-aided to bring his buildings or lay-out up to the required standard.

Another aspect regarding the farm buildings regulation is that a farmer with five cows gets the same literature and is governed by the same regulations as a farmer with 50 cows despite the vast difference in the incomes of the two farming enterprises. Farmers, by and large, through information from their farm advisers, farm co-ops, farming organisations and the media, have become aware of the dangers of farmyard pollution and they are now much more conscious of the potential damage that this pollution can cause to rivers, streams or lakes.

The jewel in the west of Ireland is the Corrib-Mask region and this can be promoted as the largest unpolluted, free fishing lake in Europe. The potential of this wonderful waterway, if properly promoted, could be worth hundreds of millions of pounds in tourism revenue to this country and to this largely underdeveloped region which depends so much on tourist business. Up to 15 months ago it could have been promoted as the largest and greatest free fishing lake in Europe, before the Government introduced the now famous rod licence.

An Cathaoirleach

Stay with the Bill now.

Mr. McCormack

I will have to refer to it in that manner. I hope it will be redressed shortly. Perhaps the Minister's views might coincide with my own on that.

Mr. O'Callaghan

Your party supported it.

Mr. McCormack

I spoke against it here in the Seanad on 18 December 1988.

Rightly or wrongly, anglers and other users of the Corrib saw this licence as a means of the Government taking over control of the Corrib. This is one of the reasons why the legislation has been resisted. These other uses, I have no doubt, would lead to pollution of our lakes and rivers. At the time I did not see this danger but subsequent events have established quite clearly that there was a campaign to take over our lakes for fish farming and thus create a further threat of pollution to our waterways. The introduction of this licence coincided with the development of fish farming activities in Connemara and along the west coast generally. The ordinary people of the Corrib-Mask and Connemara regions became alerted and by their campaign of public awareness saved at least the Corrib-Mask from the introduction of fish cages. This may seem an unreal threat to the outside observer but it was a real threat and I will establish that now by proof of what was happening in regard to attempts to put fish cages into the fresh waters in our area.

To realise the threat the Corrib-Mask region was under one would have to realise the vastness of the salmon farming projects taking place in the sea water in sheltered bays along the west coast. To supply those salmon farms with smolts, it is required to rear the smolts in fresh water, lakes or rivers, or in so-called land based hatcheries which are smolt-rearing installations on the banks of rivers, discharging their effluent into the rivers and lakes.

To give some idea of the vastness of this salmon farming business I will quote some statistics from a document produced by the Western Regional Fisheries Board, Potential Sites for salmon smolt production for the aquaculture industry in the Western Region:

It is estimated that there will be increasing demand for salmon smolts by the aquaculture industry in the region over the next 3 years. The projected figures are: total requirement, 4 million; existing output, 0.5 million; planned output for new units extensions, 1 million; future requirements from 1987-1990, 2.5 million. According to the I.A.A. the lack of available freshwater sites is impeding the development of the industry in the region. Therefore, at this stage, it is important not only to identify the projected smolt requirements but to decide how and where this can be met. Salmon farming is of growing economic importance to the region but Irish producers have to be competitive with their counterparts in Scotland and Norway and operating costs affect this. According to Roberts 1987, the operating costs are—

I will not give them. The document further states:

There is little published information in relation to the cost of smolt production on land based sites versus cages, but undoubtedly the capital costs associated with land based units is a prohibitive factor for many small operators.

The industry requires sites within 2 hours driving time of the sea cages. In practice this means that sea farms in the board's jurisdiction would most likely have to be supplied with smolts produced within the region.

There are 25,000 smolts to one tonne, 4 million smolts equals 160 tonnes.

It takes approximately 250 million litres of fresh water to produce one tonne of fish, that is 55 million gallons. It will require 8,800 million gallons of fresh water to produce four million smolts or 160 tonnes each year. To get this into perspective, for example, Galway city uses 8 million gallons of water each day or 300 million gallons of water each year.

The annual production of 4 million smolts will require about three times the amount of fresh water that Galway city uses each year. This massive amount of fresh water is only available in Lough Corrib and Lough Mask. It would not be economically viable to the multinationals who have invested tens of millions of pounds already in fish farm projects around the west coast if they were not able to produce their raw material smolts i.e. the young salmon, for putting in the fish cages. So therefore, it is quite clear that those developers had their eyes on the Corrib-Mask as the only area of lake with volumes of water sufficient to produce the number of smolts required for their investment in their sea farming activities. There was not enough fresh water elsewhere in Connemara or County Galway to rear the smolts so the pressure was on from high places to allow those multinational fish farm developers to get their smolt rearing cages on the Mask and the Corrib. But fair dues to the people of Galway and Mayo, they saw the danger and were alerted in time and by their public awareness and public demand they closed that door, but barely in time.

In case the Minister thinks I exaggerate, let me outline what was happening in my county and, indeed, in my neighbouring county which the Minister represents, County Mayo. The multinational companies pursuing fish farming were eventually able to get permission for smolt rearing on lakes and rivers by persevering with planning applications and appeals and then applying again. I will give just two examples to outline what I am saying and to prove that what I am saying is factual.

Example No. 1 is planning reference 53604 to Galway County Council. This was an application to Galway County Council by Bradan Mara for an onshore salmon hatchery at Ballinahinch granted by Galway County Council on 27 April 1987 and appealed to the Appeals Board. The applicants in this case, strangely, did not wait for a decision from the Appeals Board but they proceeded to lodge another application, planning reference 54294. This was granted by Galway County Council on 19 June 1987. This decision was also appealed to the Appeals Board and both these decisions were decided on by the Appeals Board on 28 September 1987. Despite the complexities of this case, this was a fairly quick decision, in three months, by normal standards of the Appeals Board, but stranger was to occur.

Planning reference 53604 was refused by the Appeals Board and planning reference 54294 was granted by the Appeals Board, both on the same day. It is quite clear the applicants must have had some knowledge of the likely outcome of planning reference 53604 when they did not wait for a decision from the Appeals Board and yet lodged another similar application three months later which was decided by the Appeals Board in their favour at the same time. As well as that, it might be of interest to point out that some months before the Appeals Board decision in this case, the company concerned, without permission, started to erect a road through a forest to the site, another clear indication to me that they had knowledge of the likely success of one of their planning applications.

The next example I will give is just as startling as the previous one. I am certain that the Minister for the Environment, if he were here, would take special interest in this one as not alone does it affect my county but it also affects the neighbouring county of Mayo. This application, again, was a double application, first planning reference 52454. This was a planning application by Eisc Iathglas Teo., seeking permission for fish cages in Lough na Fooey. To anybody who does not know, this is a lake at the head of Lough Mask, which feeds the Mask and also connects to the Corrib. This planning application for fish cages in Lough na Fooey was refused by Galway County Council on 17 July 1986 on two grounds. I got this information as a result of a notice of motion put down to Galway County Council in June, 1988:

Reference No. 52454: Eisc Iathglas Teo., permission for fish cages in Lough na Fooey refused by Galway County Council on 17 July, 1986 on two grounds:

(i) public health hazard in head waters of Lough Mask which is a major source of public water supply and

(ii) injury to visual amenity.

Refused an appeal by An Bord Pleanála solely on grounds of visual amenity.

Yet, despite the refusal of the application I have referred to, 52454, a similar application was made to the same planning authority by the same company for submerged fish cages in Lough na Fooey, planning reference No. 55416. This was decided on by Galway County Council on 17 February 1988 and it was decided to grant temporary permission for five years. This is now on appeal to the Appeals Board and it is quite obvious that even the Appeals Board at this stage are getting the message about the danger and the resistance to fish farming on those lakes which is being used as a water supply. Even though Galway County Council decided on 17 February 1988 to grant permission, exactly a year later the Appeals Board has not made a decision in this case. Yet in the earlier case I quoted, reference 54294, it took the Appeals Board only three months to make a decision to grant the application. The penny has dropped even with the Appeals Board and this is due to the awareness of the people and the public interest created by these matters.

This has caused the people of the Corrib-Mask area to fight to preserve their waters free of any type of pollution. It is still extraordinary in my opinion that the planning permission was granted by Galway County Council because if cages in application 52454 were a public health hazard, as quoted in the County Council document, in head waters of Lough Mask, which is the major source of a water supply in the Minister's constituency, submerged cages would be no different. They would create the same health hazard in my opinion. All this, despite a recommendation to Galway County Council from the Western Health Board dealing with planning permissions and I quote from a document of the Western Health Board. It is headed: Application for permission for on shore salmon hatchery and associated site works at Cloonnacatan. It reads:

We recommend that planning permission should be granted, subject to the following conditions. That water is not extracted downstream for human consumption.

I would also like to quote at this stage a letter issued by the Western Health Board in October 1986. This concerns again the whole question of the Western Health Board's opinion of the pollution that may be caused and the dangers of fish farming development in waters being used as public waters supplies. This is a letter from the Western Health Board in October 1986, signed by A. W. Halloran, supervisor environment health officer. It states:

The approach to water supply sources must be to protect and preserve them because of the significance of the wholesome water supply in relation to public health. Any threat, therefore, to an existing source must be resisted. This principle is reflected in E.E.C. legislation relating to water supplies.

Intensive fish farming is still at the development stage and little research has been carried out on its long term effects on drinking water. We know, however, that it is almost universal practice in fish farming to use antibiotics in the feed to control disease and chemicals to control parasitic infection.

Amongst the chemicals used are Formaldehyde, Malachite Green, Hyamine, Acriflavine, Dipterex and Enheptine. The first four listed are suspected carcinogens and the last two are known carcinogens. There is no comparison in the use of Malachite Green in topical application for a limited period of time and its consumption in drinking water for a lifetime. The fact that these substances are used means that they will be present in the drinking water, as conventional treatment will not remove them. They will of course be used in very low levels and may be undetectable using existing techniques. However, their presence in the water cannot be denied and this information, once it becomes known could give rise to great fear and anxiety in the community. People would fear that their water supply would be contaminated with dangerous chemicals and no amount of expert advice would alter this view.

Antibiotics which are used in the feed will be present also in the water supply and the food chain. Again they would be at very low levels, but because their properties and effects are so well known, their presence could give rise to the same anxiety as would be the case for suspected and known carcinogens.

The last planning application I will quote is planning application reference 51426 to Galway County Council.

This is an application for a salmon, par and smolt rearing installation at Bunatobber on the Kilroe River, Corrundulla, Co. Galway. This permission was granted by Galway County Council on 24 February 1985. It went into operation some time in 1985-86 yet they did not have a licence to discharge effluent in the Kilroe River and this was only applied for two or three years later, planning reference 112-86. This licence to discharge was granted by Galway County Council on 1 June 1988. The decision to grant the licence to discharge effluent is now on appeal to the Appeals Board and, again, there is no decision on this one. Yet, the enterprise has continued to operate since 1986 and must be discharging effluent without any licence to discharge.

The extraordinary thing about this enterprise is that one mile downstream from this installation, the Kilroe river flows into the Corrib at Ballinduff in Luimneach Bay on the Corrib near Headford. This permission was granted despite the known attitude of the Western Health Board from several internal memos and from the statements of the health board officer. Out of this same Luimneach Bay which is a sheltered bay on the Corrib near Headford, three major group water schemes draw their supply, the Kilcoona-Caherlistrane scheme with over 600 houses, the Annaghdown scheme with 300 users and Crosswood/Cloughan with about 250 houses. All of this water is untreated water, just chlorinated. The major pipe from the Crosswood/Cloughan scheme has been brought to Headford and is ready to be connected to the Headford town supply when a suitable pumping station is erected. This is ready for connection and Galway County Council have also indicated that they propose to take a supply from this area to Tuam.

I would like the Minister to explain the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. It reads:

Section 3 provides for the amendment of section 3 of the 1977 Act which imposes a general prohibition on causing or permitting any polluting matter to enter waters. Subsection (1) amends the present "good defence" provision so as to place a greater onus on the person charged to prove that he could not reasonably have foreseen that his act or omission might cause or permit polluting matter to enter waters. Subsection (1) also replaces section 3 (5) (a) of the 1977 Act by a provision clarifying the effluents to which the general prohibition does not apply. Subsection (2) empowers the Minister to restrict or repeal, by regulations, the exemptions set out in sections 3 (5) abnd 3 (6) of the 1977 Act; any such regulations must be laid in draft before both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Because of the fact that the person getting permission to discharge effluent into the Kilroe river in this case, does it prove that he could not reasonably have foreseen that his act or omission might cause or permit polluting matter to enter waters? I have given three examples of planning permission sought — I could give more — and how it was eventually granted and the circumstances in which it were granted. Are we serious about the prevention of water pollution or are we going along blindly hoping for the best, maybe to discover in five, ten or 15 years that we have destroyed an asset and a lake like the Corrib-Mask which might take hundreds of years to restore? Are we going along blindfold, without proper knowledge or concern about the effects, if any, that the discharge of effluent will have on major water supplies?

It should be pointed out that Galway city with a population of 47,000, and the surrounding areas, draw their water from the Corrib. Fish farms, so-called land based, which is only based on the edge of the river disposing their effluent into the river, should not take place on lakes or rivers used as water supply sources because of the chemicals and antibiotics which are used to control disease and parasitic infection. There is concern in County Galway about the operation of fish farms. Lettercraffroe Lake upstream from Oughterard and the Kilroe river where salmon smolt rearing is taking place are used for drinking water when it enters the Corrib and it would appear that granting planning permission for these two fish farms is in conflict with the regulations relating to water supply for human consumption. There are a number of group water schemes with over 1,000 houses being supplied from the very bay into which one of these fish farms is disposing of its effluent, and more importantly, a much greater demand will be made in the foreseeable future on this source of supply. In The Connacht Tribune of 23 September 1988 Galway County Council published details of its Tuam Regional Water Supply project. This envisages the provision of water for Tuam with a population of 6,700 and the neighbouring electoral area from Lough Corrib with an intake point in Ballyduff Bay which is in the townland of Luimneach East and Luimneach West, from Luimneach Bay where the effluent is being discharged from an upstream fish farm.

To meet the additional demand, the County Council expects that water will be pumped from the bay at a maximum rate of 50,000 cubic metres per day. The Minister for the Environment has stated publicly that ecological interests will not be sacrificed for the sake of creating jobs. I contend he must take action on those so-called land based fish farms and particularly he must ensure that this stretch of Lough Corrib is kept unpolluted. This is used for drinking purposes for 1,000 families at present, and an estimated 2,500 when it will eventually cater for the Tuam Regional Water Supply and possibly another 1,000 houses in the Headford area when the supply is connected to augment the present Headford supply scheme. He must assure those people that the principle stated by him will be applied with the primary object of ensuring that the quality of the water is safeguarded.

I know that due to public awareness in Counties Galway and Mayo the Minister for the Marine responded in May 1988 when he issued a statement concerning the imposition or non-imposition of fish cages on fresh water, and I quote:

The Minister for the Marine, Mr. Brendan Daly, T.D. wishes to clarify the legal position and policy with regard to the placing of aquaculture projects in freshwater lakes. The Minister has stated that no such projects will be permitted in lakes where there are major wild fisheries i.e. trout and salmon.

The Fisheries Conservation Act, 1959 requires that aquaculture projects in lakes be authorised by the Department of the Marine which has discretion as to whether or not they are allowed to proceed.

In certain instances, local authorities have by Order extended the jurisdiction over specific lakes, usually where the lakes are used for water extraction — this is a growing phenomenon. In those instances, cage based projects also require planning permission and are subject to the normal notification and scrutiny provisions of the Planning Acts and may not proceed without approval both from the Department of the Marine and the appropriate Planning Authority.

I welcome that statement because of the concern being expressed in the regions I have dealt with. How can county councils monitor this actvitity in fish farming because fish cages and smolt rearing is such a new phenomenon and we have not got the expertise to deal with this matter at county council level? How can they, on a continuing reduced budget each year, have enough personnel to monitor what is going on in our lakes and rivers?

The last sentence in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states: "The Bill does not give rise to any additional financial or staffing costs." How can we avoid additional financial or staffing costs if we are to properly monitor an ongoing situation? How can local authorities continue to do this on a reduced budget? For example, in 1988 in Galway our capital grant was reduced by 14 per cent or £1.4 million. Again, this year it has been reduced by 5.5 per cent or £560,000. I pose the question in all seriousness: how can the county council monitor pollution in vast areas like Galway with so many rivers, lakes, waters and seas in the light of these cutbacks? Very shortly, because of the lack of money being spent on county roads, it will be impossible to travel some of the roads in County Galway to get to the lakes and rivers to see what is going on. I know of situations already where people living in remote areas of Connemara have to park their cars at the end of the county road and walk to their houses, a distance of half-a-mile or more. This is the reality of the way people in my county are living at present. Perhaps it is different in other counties. In the north and south Connemara regions in particular some county roads have been washed away. If there are not roads to get to the lakes and rivers — leaving aside the inconvenience to local people — how can the relevant officials on a continually reducing budget monitor some of the possible causes of pollution?

In May 1988 the Minister for the Marine made a statement concerning the placing of aquaculture projects in freshwater lakes. I submit he should have gone further in this matter. He did not mention anything about having any opposition to so-called land based smolt-rearing installations and those can have the same detrimental effect as any projects in fresh water and can cause pollution. Even with land projects the effluent has to be discharged into a river which eventually will find its way into the lake. This must have the same effect on our freshwater as if those enterprises were conducted in the lake.

I do not apologise to anybody for putting my feelings on the matter on the record of the House. I am only mirroring the feelings of the people who have been alerted by the dangers they see around them in the development of fish farming in Connemara and the dangers they see to the Corrib-Mask area of Galway-Mayo particularly in relation to the possible pollution dangers to the Corrib and Mask waters from fish farms based in the head waters or in contributory rivers to those lakes. Who will thank us as public representatives in ten, 15 or 20 years time if we now remain silent and allow some multinational, high-powered, high-financed companies to take over our waters?

Will the generations to come after us thank us if we in the eighties stand idly by and allow anything to go ahead that might endanger the natural, God-given, free-from-pollution waters of the Corrib and Mask which I have described as the greatest unpolluted freshwater lake in Europe? We will be hardly thanked if we stood idly by and allow anything to happen which might have a detrimental effect on those natural limestone lakes. These lakes are the greatest natural fishing asset in Europe — when we settle the rod licence question. They could be sold to the people of Europe because there is nothing to equal them on the Continent. In Europe you have to book your fishing time in advance; there is a queue and a whistle is blown when your time is up and you are only fishing for fish which were put into the lake perhaps a year or so before you came there.

In my own area we have the greatest unpolluted 60,000 to 70,000 acres of water on the Corrib-Mask and it would be a sin if the public representatives of the area did not do everything possible in their power to maintain asset. I have taken up this campaign vigorously to support the efforts of the people of that region in ensuring that the Corrib-Mask will remain as far as possible an unpolluted, free, natural lake. Those who follow us will not thank us if we do not stand up now and be counted in this matter. I am asking the Minister to join in my plea and stand up and be counted on behalf of the people of the area I represent, on behalf of the people he represents and on behalf of the people represented by the Minister for the Environment.

It is unfortunate that the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, had to be called out on business. We have had a change of Ministers of State. I began the debate last week in the presence of the Minister for the Environment. I welcome the presence of the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, whom I know has a keen interest in local authority and local government matters. I have made my contribution at a slight disadvantage as regards looking for replies to some of the questions I have posed but I know they will be dealt with adequately. However, over the past two weeks, I have made my speech to three different Ministers. I know that could not be helped and I am not faulting any of the Ministers concerned because these things happen. I am sure my views and the serious and very strong feelings I have on the matter will be taken into account.

I have gone into great detail because I thought it was necessary. From my position as a representative on Galway County Council and Galway Borough council for many years I can see at firsthand what is going on. An attempt was made about a year ago — and it was at its strongest before the Minister for the Marine made that statement in May 1988 and the evidence I have given in my contribution here today substantiates it — to get fish cages on the head waters of the Corrib and, indeed, on the Corrib-Mask itself. I am glad that threat has temporarily abated but we and the Minister must be vigilant as public representatives to ensure that such a thing could never happen. If I can get assurances in that regard on the record I will be very glad of them.

I have responded to this debate because I was aware of what was happening in my own county and I am sure the Minister and Ministers of State are aware of what is happening throughout this area. I am aware from my observations that people are now alerted to the dangers. The bluff has been called: no longer will people take threats of any type of pollution, particularly such as I have outlined here. I will quote just a couple of publications which came to my notice recently; there are 20 or 30 of them but I will only quote two of them. The first one is from the Irish Skipper of January 1989: It says in the heading: “660 Applications for Fish Farms”. The second one is more recent, I only read it today coming up on the train. It is from the Irish Independent of 14 February 1989 and says: “‘Sea Threat’ appeal to Daly”— meaning the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Daly. It states:

An alert on the "serious threat" to outstanding beaches on the Connemara coast has been sounded by the Roundstone Community Council.

It is concerned at the Department of the Marine's decision to designate the 70 square miles of inshore seas from Slyne Head to Mace Head as suitable for fish farming....

that is from outside the Ballyconneely golf course to a location on the Galway side of Carna.

A licence to farm salmon in cages is essentially a licence to dump effluent into the surrounding waters, uneaten food, excrement, antibiotics, pesticides and dyes, according to the chairwoman, Ann Conneally. No local inhabitant has been consulted about the Department's decision and a licence to farm salmon has been granted to North Connemara Farmers' Co-operative Society. The Minister, Deputy Brendan Daly, should specify this a designated area before the area is irreparably damaged. I support the call by Ann Conneally of the Round-stone Community Council.

Another aspect of this is visible to anybody travelling the road recently, or in the last year, from Letterfrack to Leenane along by the very beautiful Killary Harbour. It is like a battlefield, with all types of unsystematic fish cages littering the bay for a space of three or four miles. It is like something left after scrap merchants or people of that nature had departed in a hurry. It is a scandal that in one of the highest scenic amenity areas in Connemara this should be allowed to happen.

I would like to know if the Bill deals with inland fresh water pollution and sea pollution. I know that county councils have planning jurisdiction only up to the high water mark and have not control of planning outside that. I wonder if there is any provision in this Bill to control development in seas as well? In the sheltered bays around the Connemara coast very grave damage can be done by fish farming development in such bays over which we have no control as a local authority.

I will conclude by saying I will be considering amendments to this Bill at a later stage.

Mr. Fallon

The objective of this Bill is to modify and extend the present arrangements for control of water pollution with a view to ensuring that the quality of water resources is maintained at a high level — very important and very praiseworthy aspirations. I would like to think that this Bill will allay the fears of Senator McCormack and many other people who, like all of us, have a real interest in the whole area of water pollution. I welcome the Bill which, hopefully, will go a long way to end this problem of water pollution.

When we look back over the past few years we will think, perhaps, of the summer of 1987. It is one that will be remembered for the very high number of serious water pollution incidents and obviously these incidents could not be allowed to recur. I see this Bill as a clear response to that problem. When you consider that the last comprehensive water quality report by An Foras Forbartha in 1987 identified the sources of long-term water pollution as 70 per cent urban-industrial and 20 per cent farming or agriculture and 10 per cent other miscellaneous sources, one can readily understand that local authorities and industrial and farming activities generally would figure prominently in this Bill.

While there are additional effective control powers given to local authorities, it is a fact that in very many cases local authorities are major offenders. In so far as Athlone is concerned, it is a fact that the entire sewage effluent from Athlone town and the environs is discharged untreated into the River Shannon just downstream of the town and it is also a fact that the Foras Forbartha report has indicated very little evidence of pollution in the River Shannon and in some of the lakes. It is not desirable that effluent be discharged into any river and while we hope that it will end, it is a fact that it has been going on for a long time in Athlone. As we have the Minister with us, we cannot let the opportunity pass without commenting on the fact that proposals for a full treatment plant have been with the Department of the Environment for some time.

I accept this is not a problem peculiar to Athlone. I imagine that pollution in a river smaller in size and perhaps less swift flowing might cause many real problems. In the river near Athlone it has been noted that the absorption capacity of the receiving waters is so vast that pollution is dissipated within a few metres of the actual outfall. Whether that would happen generally in the case of slow moving rivers and lakes I do not know.

Reference was made to the 20 per cent of pollution attributable to farming. We are aware that there are pollution control grants for farmers in disadvantaged areas. This is something that is understandable but it might also be seen in many areas as somewhat unfair. The principle of the designated disadvantaged area has eliminated most of Westmeath from this scheme and bearing in mind that Westmeath is a great lake county, the fact is that many of the farmers in the Lough Derrevaragh and Lough Owel catchment areas will have financial difficulties. Requesting remedial work from them surely means that they should get some form of grant assistance in line with what is given to other areas of disadvantage. Some farmers simply cannot afford to carry out overhauls without financial assistance. People in Westmeath resent the fact that so many farmers in the designated disadvantaged areas are getting a better deal. This, in so far as the local authority-farmers relationship in Westmeath is concerned is bound to have some influence; they would feel in some way that they are getting a raw deal.

As regards Lough Derrevaragh, I want to welcome the fact that a similar task force exercise as we had at Lough Sheelin has been arranged for Lough Derrevaragh and I would like to congratulate the Department of the Environment and my colleague, Deputy Henry Abbot, for his great work in bringing this about. I think it is something that will be appreciated generally.

In so far as the farming community is concerned, I hope that this Bill in seeking to penalise a known hard core of deliberate or careless polluters, would not frighten the genuine farmers because many of them are quite careful about water pollution and are playing their part to help in the matter. Farmers must be given due recognition for the huge reduction in instances of fish kills from silage effluent, etc. from a total of 82 fish kills in 1987 to 22 in 1988. These figures have been officially recorded by the Cental Fisheries Board. The vast majority of farmers fully understand the seriousness of this problem and are anxious to play their part.

In respect of unauthorised discharges from trade premises into waters or sewers, perhaps the Minister might say if the local authorities or the fisheries people can reclaim all costs that have been incurred in the investigations, the monitoring and in the sampling that would have to take place. I am just wondering if the local authority or the fisheries people have powers under section 10, which is the section that deals with direct intervention by local and sanitary authorities to prevent or deal with any water pollution incidents, to serve notices on such trade concerns? Can the industry be held responsible for any damage caused by their particular action and can they be made to pay for all costs involved in this detecting, monitoring or rectifying of the damage? Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.

I note there is no mention of pollution from the use of boats and the use of pleasure craft. I am not even sure if it is a contributory factor. Many people have suggested to me from time to time that it can be a factor. I would again make the point that certainly in a fast river such as the Shannon it may not be, but in slow-moving rivers and lakes it may be a problem. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.

There is certainly no significant evidence of pollution within the channel length, of 2,550 metres, of the River Shannon, that is within the Athlone Urban District Council areas, even though the average daily traffic through Athlone lock during August 1988 was 59 boats. That may not be a real issue and prehaps the Minister would comment on it.

I am convinced the Government are taking the important question of water pollution very seriously and I think it is working. There is now a greater awareness of the problem. I would like to think that advice has paid off and will continue to pay off. The local authorities also are taking a tougher line with polluters; as the evidence shows, we have had a trebling of prosecutions under the Water Pollution Act, 1987. The heavy penalties provided for in this Bill will surely make people realise that the financial risks are not worth it.

There is an increase in the maximum figure on summary conviciton from £250 to £1,000 which applies under the Water Pollution and the Fisheries Act. The other penalty is a new maximum penalty on conviction which has been increased from 5,000 to £25,000 or imprisonment for a period of five years. These are very severe penalties and I hope they will have the desired result. I do not think, as Senator McCormack suggested, that we are running blind in this area because I see this Bill as a very serious attempt to rectify the important problem of water pollution.

I support in theory the views of Senator McCormack that we have a duty to ensure that no one, whether through carelessness or greed, will risk damaging one of our most valuable natural resources. The Bill will go a long way to rectify the problems that exist in the whole area of water pollution. I congratulate the Minister for bringing forward the Bill and I sincerely hope it will be a huge success.

Mr. Harte

I do not propose to keep the House too long. Any Bill that sets out to modify or extend the present arrangements for the control of pollution in the interests of the quality of the water we drink, or bathe in or use for fishing etc. must be welcomed. It is good to see some of the provisions in the Bill will go a long way towards dealing with pollution problems. It is particularly good to see the onus being placed on the persons charged to prove that they could not reasonably have foreseen that they were going to pollute water by their action.

It is also encouraging to note the extension of the grounds on which High Court intervention can be sought by direct intervention. The extra powers that are conferred on the local authorities are also welcomed, particularly in the area where they can insist on getting more information on water extraction and discharges and in relation to the whole question of activity involving water in industrial plants, etc. Also to be welcomed are the powers that assist in the prevention of pollution by any means.

It is equally encouraging to see that we have about 13 amendments to the Principal Act and that individuals have the right to seek a court order requiring the person responsible for pollution to mitigate or remedy any effects of the pollution in the manner and in the period specified by the court. It goes on to state that the court may also order the polluter to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in investigating, mitigating or remedying the effects of the pollution. These are all welcome aspects of the Bill and welcome developments in the whole matter of dealing with water pollution.

Most of us will agree that any environmental damage is very serious. It is only right that from time to time problems, such as smog or whatever it is should be highlighted. There is more concern about water pollution than anything else because the problem is much more widespread. The problem of smog can be confined to towns — some parts of towns could be free from it while other parts of towns and cities could be highly polluted — but when it comes to water, having regard to all its uses, for drinking, bathing, fishing and so on, the damage, for example, caused by seepage from an oil tanker can be colossal and can have long lasting effects, not only on the water itself but on everything around it, the forests the farms and the fish.

The discharge of raw sewage and effluent into rivers is a very serious matter. In many cases while factories get bigger the amount of healthy water diminishes. It is very serious indeed. I do not know if the Bill covers the question of records and data relating to discharges into the rivers. Even though the licences given to the people who have the right to discharge demand that they make monthly records, I have a feeling that this is not adhered to. It is one of the areas where the Bill perhaps may not have gone sufficiently far enough to ensure that it can be done.

I welcome the Bill but I have a reservation in this particular case. It is that if you give power to the local authorities in a comprehensive Bill to deal with the whole question of water pollution — it is certainly a very considerable step forward from the way we have been dealing with the problem — then you must extend to them the facilities to make sure that they can monitor the whole situation. We have to think of all that is happening in the Bill in the sense of so many amendments to the Principal Act, the whole question of application to the High Court for individuals and the local authorities and also the question of collecting data on a much more regular basis.

Generally speaking, the provisions of the Bill allow the fines paid by defaulters to go directly to the local authorities rather than to the courts and this is a welcome development. It is a great extension to the powers of the local authorities. When you get back to the question of all of those powers being allocated to the local authorities, you inevitably come down to the question — this is where the "but" comes in — of staffing. I am not satisfied that in dealing with a comprehensive Bill like this, where the powers are extended to the local authorities, that the staff situation at the moment will enable all the work to be done.

The reservation I have about the Bill is the fear that, having given all these powers to local democracy it would be very sad indeed if they could not, because of understaffing, give full effect to the powers to protect the environment, particularly the effects of water pollution. That is the sad part of the Bill. I hope the Minister can reassure me on that point. Quite frankly I am worried about it and I doubt if he can. It is like the tax situation. You can go after all the tax defaulters but if you have not got the staff to monitor and research the matter you will come back to square one. All the goodwill and the good intentions of the Bill can be lost in such a situation.

Many things can happen; for example, there is the worrying feature of the oil seepage from the Kowloon Bridge. At the time we did not have a contingency plan and the disaster had a very serious effect on wildlife in the area. One really does not know the full extent of the damage done when water is polluted, particularly as a result of seepage from an oil tanker. Naturally, we do not know if the environment around the whole area is in danger. We do not know if any samples were taken from the water and sent for proper analysis by international experts.

When there is a case of pollution it may take years for the full effects to become apparent. Fish kills may result from something that happened years before but because of lack of testing and because the local authorities had no powers in the matter it was not possible to do the test necessary at the particular time. We do not know if our Merchant Shipping Acts are up-to-date or if they are suitable to deal with any problems that may arise.

The Bill is a very good one and I am very pleased to see it coming before the House. The Government have responded well to the situation and we must give them credit for it. At the same time, we do not know if the Bill can accomplish all that is intended. My one reason for making a contribution on the Bill was to get these points across. I appreciate fully what is in the Bill and I appreciate the efforts of the Government in this particular direction. However, I do not believe their good intentions can come to fruition because of understaffing.

Mr. Cullimore

I would like to compliment the Minister on the measures he has already taken to prevent water pollution. These measures include surveys of farms in high pollution risk areas by task forces organised by local authorities. Pollution awareness and advice campaigns were organised among farmers by Teagasc and ACOT and the new scheme of pollution control grants were introduced for farmers in disadvantaged areas. I particularly welcome the awareness and advice campaigns. I believe that many people who pollute our waterways are unaware of the damage they cause to fish life and to our amenities.

Pollution control grants are obviously having a significant effect in combating pollution. However, I ask the Minister to use his influence in getting an extension of the grants available in disadvantaged areas to the rest of the country. In disadvantaged areas grants of up to 55 per cent and 69 per cent for young farmers are available, while in counties like my own, Wexford, only 20 per cent and 25 per cent respectively are available with the exception of the 3 per cent disadvantaged area we have. Although we have only a 3 per cent disadvantaged area, about 1,000 farmers in our county have an income less than £5,000 and 2,500 farmers in my county have viability problems. The cost of taking preventive measures such as slurry holding facilities and slurry spreading, are the same throughout the country and I feel that the grant should apply the same throughout the country. However, measures which have already been taken by the Government and the Minister have resulted in a dramatic fall in the number of fish kills.

The Minister deserves great credit for the considerable effort undertaken to raise public awareness of water pollution. In the period leading up to the presentation of this Bill valuable work has been done to make the public aware of the effect of people polluting our atmosphere. In co-operation with bodies such as Teagasc and ACOT advice campaigns have helped to explode many myths surrounding this question. Taking a positive view, I feel that a lack of knowledge or awareness of their actions on the part of farmers rather than a cavalier disregard for our waterways, leads to much of the damage caused. Given the efforts of relevant authorities to dispel any illusions under which farmers may be labouring, it is entirely justifiable to introduce stiff penalties for the minority who persist in anti-social and destructive activities.

I should like to compliment the Minister on providing moneys for the upgrading of local authority sewage treatment and disposal facilities. New plants in Portlaoise, Fermoy, Carlow and Malahide have meant a serious reduction in the problem of pollution in these areas. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration for giving the go-ahead to Wexford Corporation to start the main drainage scheme. At present, sewage is going into Wexford Harbour through 27 outfalls and is untreated. If we could get our main drainage scheme going we could go ahead with our marina plans and finish our urban renewal plan. It would certainly enhance the area. I should like, at this stage to compliment the Minister on introducing that scheme in Wexford. It is having a significant effect on the town.

Section 21 allows a local authority to make by-laws relating to all or a particular part of its functional areas, prohibiting or regulating specified activities carried on for the purpose of agriculture, horticulture or forestry, where the authority considers it necessary to do so in order to prevent or eliminate pollution of waters. I welcome this power given to local authorities. They are much more familiar with the situation than those in central Government.

Section 22 sets out the procedure to be followed when a sanitary authority intend to make an order declaring a combined drain to be a sewer. Up to now a certain amount of confusion existed in this area. I had a case in my own constituency lately where people had taken legal action in order to ascertain who was responsible for a particular sewer.

Section 23 provides that where an offence is committed by a corporate body and it is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a director or manager, then they are liable. I particularly welcome this decision to make company secretaries liable for any pollution caused by their corporate body. The payment of fines to local authorities is a very practical decision and the Minister must be complimented on this. I welcome the amendment to the "good defence" provision, which will place a greater onus on the person charged to prove that he could not reasonably have foreseen that the actions would cause pollution.

Section 20 deals with the fact that polluters now may be liable civilly to charges of pollution. This should provide an effective deterrent. Also, people will realise that this is not only a problem for local government or central Government but for individuals as well. I welcome the Bill which strengthens the legislation. It ensures that in future polluters will pay the price.

Mr. G. Reynolds

The Water Pollution Bill aims at protecting the water resources of the community in the interests of the community and to promote tourism. The Water Pollution Bill is very important to many community interests in the country over a long priod of time. I come from County Leitrim. We seem to be at the end of the line in having certain schemes provided. In Leitrim there is a serious problem in providing potable water to homes, in particular to rural areas. Some 22 per cent of the homes in County Leitrim had no piped water supply at the time of the 1981 census and today the situation has not improved. Socially, that is a great disadvantage to any area. If 22 per cent of a county has not the facility of piped water it is at a disadvantage because of the cost of boring for water and people will not be inclined to build houses in such an area. Unfortunately, Leitrim is the only county whose population has decreased and if we are not able to compete and give the same services as any other county the population will continue to decline. That is an area the Department should look at very seriously.

There is an EC directive which requires certain standards to be maintained in the quality of drinking water. There are quite a number of group schemes in County Leitrim and they are servicing the community well. As they stand they are very well appreciated. However, the quality of water in some of the group schemes is disastrous. For example, in the Coraleehan group scheme, which is just outside Ballinamore, the water there is basically bogwater. You could get away with selling it as Guinness rather than as drinking water. The water is brown. If we are to take up the EC directive we must do it properly. The quality of water piped into homes is very important.

Quite an amount of money has been spent on an existing scheme, called the South Leitrim Water Scheme. Basically, the water is provided from the Shannon to areas such as Mohill, Carrick-on-Shannon and Ballinamore. Last week the ESB said that the level of water in Lough Allen was very low. They closed gates and they wanted to raise the level. A treatment plant has been provided in Carrick-on-Shannon, one of the most modern, which cost between £1 million and £2 million. I am informed it was built basically to deal with alkaline water. There was an increase of pH in the water — perhaps the people in the Department are more informed than I and they can correct me if I am wrong — and it arrived in households with sand at the bottom. People will obviously turn to their public representatives to ask what is happening.

The point I am making is that there has been a large investment in a treatment plant and once the initial investment is made it should cater for all eventualities. Obviously, this did not happen so far as the scheme was concerned in my part of the country. This scheme, eventually — however long "eventually" means — will be extended to most of the housing in south County Leitrim. There are proposals for the extension of this scheme to the rest of south County Leitrim. It is farcical to spend over £1 million on a treatment plant when things like this happen. Even though it may only occur once over a long period with that initial expenditure it should be able to cater for all eventualities.

Sewerage can also cause pollution. There are a number of proposals from the local authority in Leitrim. About 16 sewerage schemes are proposed for Ballinamore, Manorhamilton, Drumkeerin and villages along the Shannon such as Leitrim, which is starting due to the allocation from the Department of the Environment, Drumsna and Dromod. These are tourist areas.

I agree with a lot of what has been said about tourism being one of our major industries. Are we seriously trying to promote tourism if we leave areas such as the villages along the Shannon without proper sewerage facilities? If tourists arrive and there is raw sewage coming out of an inadequate scheme going into the Shannon and major tourist areas, obviously it is very offputting. The investment must be made so that this type of situation cannot happen.

Everybody is being blamed for pollution, farmers, pig farmers, and so on. It is a fact that sewerage schemes in many areas are actually causing pollution and local authorities have to deal with it. I am taking my county as an example: it is the only one I can speak of with any great idea of what is going on. Certainly in Ballinamore a sewerage scheme that has been there for the past 35 to 40 years is now totally inadequate to deal with the sewerage going through the system. Leitrim County Council or any council in the county have to make application to the Department to provide the money. A letter arrives back from the Department saying: "due to lack of funds we cannot provide money for a sewerage scheme". Where is the ball going to stop?

We can talk all we like about water pollution but there are schemes in this country which are perhaps not 100 per cent causing pollution but are certainly helping to cause it. If the Government will not finance the improvement of these schemes we are not going anywhere. It is all idle rhetoric. We are the best country in the world for coming up with laws and legislation but if we do not genuinely make finance available to rectify the problems caused by sewerage schemes how can we put this into law? When a farmer causes pollution because of slurry going into a stream which, in turn, may go into a river and cause fish to die, he can be prosecuted. As legislators we cannot make law for one section of the community and not for another. As public representatives we have the ability to provide finance for sewerage schemes that would help enormously to stop part of the pollution problem. We have to lead by example. If we do not, we are fooling ourselves and showing bad leadership to other members of the community.

A couple of months ago there was a matter on the Adjournment regarding the pollution of Lough Sheelin. I do not profess to know a lot about Lough Sheelin but anybody who looks at television or reads the newspapers knows that Lough Sheelin is one of the main areas where pollution caused many problems as far as tourism is concerned. It killed tourism in that area and pig farmers and farmers generally were blamed for it. I got some information from Cavan County Council which stated a survey was carried out and one of the main causes of pollution in Lough Sheelin was the sewerage scheme in Ballyjamesduff. My information is that money has not been spent to rectify this problem. Local people have been accused by the media of causing the pollution. I am not defending them — they are part of the problem — but I am trying to emphasise the point that if we do not as a Government and as public representatives tidy up our own business we cannot expect ordinary individuals to act responsibly. We cannot have a law for them and another law for us.

The chances of Leitrim County Council getting any finance for the 16 proposed sewerage scheme applications are very small. We cannot blame local authorities because they have not got the funding to do this work. We can talk all we like about financial rectitude but if we are serious about implementing this Bill to try and boost our tourist areas and to try and have good quality water we have to clean up our own act. I ask that the Department give funding to schemes that have been applied for by local authorities. The local councils will carry out the work once they are given the finance for it. In the short term it will improve the whole structure of the community. It will give people more reason to become involved in tourism-orientated projects and, in turn, will help the economy.

If we are serious about implementing the provisions of the Bill we will have to back up our ideas with finance. There is no point in talking here about legislation when problems can be solved by spending money wisely. The Minister would have to agree with that. This Bill is wide-ranging, but if we do not clear up our own house, we cannot expect ordinary individuals to prevent pollution.

Grant aid has been made under the western package for the provision of slurry tanks and slatted houses. It is all rather farcical. We are getting about 35 to 40 per cent which is very welcome; but ten years ago in my part of the country there were ACOT advisers, Department of Agriculture people and local authority people who advised on the size of tank to build and there was a grant provided for it. Now these tanks are in and they are not doing the job but are causing pollution. That was money badly spent. If we are going to make the initial capital expenditure we have to do it properly. Otherwise there is no point in coming back to this House or to the Lower House in five or ten years time with more legislation to prevent water pollution.

Now is the time to rectify the problems throughout the country. If the grants are made available to the farmers, I have no doubt they will do the work that has to be carried out. If the Department make money available for modernising sewerage schemes in each county we will have gone a long way towards preventing water pollution and we will be able to say we are a pollution-free country, with fresh air, good lakes and waters. We have to be the leaders in the matter and that is what I would dearly love to see resulting from this legislation. However, there is no point in having all this legislation if we do not tidy up our own act first and provide the money that is so badly needed to help stop water pollution.

Mr. O'Callaghan

At the outset I would like to congratulate the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of State who is with us this afternoon on what can only be described as particularly significant legislation. It is a comment on the quality of the legislation that there has been no real criticism of it apart from the inadequacy of funding for sewerage and water schemes and so on. It is not a problem peculiar to this Minister, but anybody with any doubts about the commitment of this Government to deal with the problems of pollution has only to read this Bill and the Air Pollution Bill which was published in recent weeks. These are two major pieces of legislation. Obviously we are going to address ourselves this afternoon to the contents of the Water Pollution Bill, but it is important that we record our appreciation of the obvious commitment of the Minister for the Environment and his Department to grapple in a serious way with the problem of pollution.

It should be said at the outset that pollution is not a major problem here and that needs to be repeated often. Listening to some of the comments here last week, and to a lesser degree today, one would imagine that this country was awash with pollution. That is not the case. Recent surveys have indicated quite clearly that somewhat less than 2 per cent of the waters of this country are seriously polluted. That is not a boast. We should be striving to have no pollution of any description in our waterways but that is probably a pipedream; it would be extremely difficult to achieve. This Bill is a serious effort to address the problem and should leave the public under no illusion about the determination of the Department and the local authorities not to pussy-foot with this matter any longer.

There is a complacency among certain sectors of industry in relation to pollution which stems primarily from the fact that the levels of pollution are relatively low and from the idea that if we pollute one lake there are about 20 more in the area so it really does not matter. That is totally unacceptable. We only have to listen to the comments of some of our European neighbours who when they visit on holidays or on business continue to tell us how lucky we are to have this extremely high quality of water in our rivers and lakes and off our coast, to realise it is important that we continue to address that problem because there is a gradual erosion of standards. We only have to look back to the summer of 1987 to see the kind of crisis a dry summer created in the agricultual sector.

We are conferring huge responsibilities on local authorities in this Bill. They will now be able to advise farmers on the methods of farming they may employ in the future. That is a very onerous task to put on the shoulders of any local authority but, as a member of a local authority, I have no doubt it will be discharged responsibily. This Bill increases in a very substantial way the powers of local authorities in this area. Up to now we had relatively weak legislation in relation to the powers of local authorities to go onto lands, to take samples and so on. Our officers met with indifference. From time to time they were refused admission and refused permission to take samples and farmers refused to identify certain parts of their property and so on. Under this legislation county councils will take this very seriously in future.

It is important that we be quite clear about the huge responsibility we are now transferring over to local authorities. They may now make by-laws regulating or prohibiting specific agricultural activities in their functional areas or any part thereof which they consider necessary in order to eliminate or prevent water pollution. This, in effect, means that we can actually stop the whole production of a farm. That is a very serious business because we are aware of the rights of private property under the Constitution. There are other areas of activity in the State where we cannot go next or near private property but this quite clearly defines certain tasks that local authorities may now discharge in this area. It is a measure of the serious approach of this Minister to this problem and it is most definitely to be welcomed.

Members have already touched at great length on the size of the fines. That is particularly important. There is now a £25,000 maximum fine, an increase from £5,000 in 1977 and that is not so long ago. It is a huge step even allowing for inflation but it is an indication of the approach we take to it. It also addresses in a serious way the old chestnut we have had in the courts in the past couple of years, the "good defence". We all know of the rape of rivers and lakes where outstanding fisheries have been wiped out overnight, and we saw people shovelling dead fish onto river banks and so on throughout the summer of 1987. That was a national disgrace and everybody was concerned about it. The maximum fine of £25,000 leaves the Judiciary under no illusions as to how the Government feel about this or as to the category of a fine to be imposed in the future.

I believe the Government have got the balance right in this case. We should be aware of the import of this section in relation to the replacement of fish stocks, the restoration of spawning grounds, the removal of pollution from water and the treatment of affected waters, in making alternative arrangements or contributing towards the cost of such arrangements to replace a domestic water supply, commercial fishing, etc. That is almost impossible to measure. How can one reasonably expect a member of the public to replace a spawning ground? Quite often one is talking about decades rather than weeks, months or years. Again, this is an indication of the Minister's total commitment to convince the public. All that will be required is one or two convictions. There was a case in Limerick 18 months ago where a farmer was prosecuted under the old Act and they are still trying to measure the costs to that person.

The public, and particularly people in the agricultural sector, will have to be made aware of the impact of their actions on the quality of life of others. They cannot go on indefinitely affecting this quality adversely. We have had public commitments — and I have no doubt they are absolutely sincere — from the leaders of the farm organisations and so on, but that does not eliminate the cowboy. He is just as indifferent to the quality of water in his area as he is to the problems of bovine TB and other problems which the Government seek to address also. There are always one or two cowboys and they will have to be made examples of if the necessity arises. In strengthening the legislation the Minister is to be congratulated because it leaves nobody under any illusion about the fact that we mean business on this occasion.

Farmers are not the only people who are polluting our waters; there was a great need for the Government to make a clear statement in relation to the general approach to water pollution, particularly in the case of manufacturing industry. It was easy for pressure groups such as the Flat Earth Society and various groups that advocate environmental protection to say at public inquiries that, according to statistics the Government do not care and that there is no adequate legislation. I have heard that said on numerous occasions at public inquiries in my own county council. The Government have eliminated this difficulty in one fell swoop in relation to both water and air pollution and that is most welcome. In Cork in recent weeks we saw the spectre of a public inquiry in relation to the Merrill Dow development and there were many comments made on that occasion about the lack of legislation, the lack of power of local authorities, the lack of ability to monitor, the lack of power to go on to private land, and so on. It is all clearly enshrined in this Bill as far as one can reasonably expect the Department to go and it is long overdue.

The only note of caution I would sound is that it is important, if this legislation is to be effective, that the Minister would look at the embargo on recruitment of personnel training in the monitoring of water quality and so on. As I said when we were debating the Litter Bill, there is little point in legislation if the various local autorities and county managers have not got the personnel because of the embargo. It may only require the relocation of existing personnel, but it is important for the Minister to seek indications from the various local authorities as to the plans they propose to put forward in relation to the implementation of legislation. This point in regard to personnel came up time and time again at the public inquiry in Cork, as did the question of the lack of equipment and people trained in the monitoring of water quality, and so on. This is a weapon which should be taken away from those who knock any steps taken.

Unfortunately we have the spectre of the objector raising its ugly head with monotonous regularity. Every time any industry is suggested now, certainly in our region, there is a plethora of objectors, all experts who can product statistics as long as one's arm to convince the whole world that the county council are so incompetent they should not be given charge of anything. It amazes me that county councillors succeed in getting elected whereas the people who comment on their inadequacy never get elected to anything and never put themselves up for election. Having said that, it is important that the Minister should be conscious of the reponsibility he has to local authorities, having given them the weapons to take on the polluters. They must have the personnel so they can nail this lie that county councils and their staff are not competent enough to implement these regulations. I have absolute confidence in the ability of local authority employees to implement all these regulations provided they get the equipment and the personnel and I will be asking the Minister to be conscious of that when this Bill becomes law.

Water quality management needs to be addressed. In this Bill we are putting the weapons at the disposal of the local authorities to take on polluters, but it is equally important that we establish bench-marks in relation to the general quality of the water in all our rivers, lakes and coastal areas because it is important, when applications for development take place, that we are able to measure, say five years on, the impact of various sewerage outfall pipes and industrial outfall pipes on the environment generally and particularly on water quality. In Bantry a very elaborate water quality management scheme has just been completed at a cost of £200,000 to the county council but it has put in position a bench-mark for the next 50 years. All development in the inner and outer harbour of that bay in future can be measured against that quality survey. It is important, particularly in areas where we envisage any sizeable industrial developments, for example the Shannon Estuary, to have those measurements in place. Senator Ryan touched on some of them. Over the past 15 or 20 years the Department have indicated their desire, anxiety and intention to carry out water quality management surveys in various locations but quite often they have not been carried out. In Cork Harbour it has been done and it is a considerable tool at the disposal of the local authority when these debates take place at public inquiries and so on.

Over the past couple of years the Minister and the Department have addressed seriously the whole area of sewerage treatment. In his address to this House, the Minister outlined a large number of towns that have already been provided with sewage treatment plants. That was excellent and we lauded him for it because obviously it is very necessary but I was somewhat upset by the fact that no coastal town was included. I hope the idea is not alive still in the Department of the Environment that because one puts a sewerage pipe out into the tide the pollution makes less of an impact. That is not true. People bathe on beaches, fish off the foreshore, take shellfish and so on. It is important that the Department, in developing a programme of sewage treatment plants all over the State, are conscious of the environmental impact of municipal sewers on coastal towns.

This takes me on to another point which I would like to develop. In many of our coastal towns there are hospitals where the sewerage goes, totally untreated into the town sewer and, in turn, into the tide. We are very conscious of the necessity to control infectious diseases. It could happen that there is an outbreak of hepatitis in the hospital, a highly contagious disease, and yet the sewage from that hospital goes into the town sewer and, in turn, down to the tide where people are swimming, fishing and taking shellfish. This area has been seriously neglected over the years and it is something which I would like the Minister to look at separately from this Bill altogether. It needs to be surveyed to discover the extent of the impact of sewer outfalls from hospitals on the general environmental qualities in these coastal towns and in inland towns as well. In the bigger towns there are treatment plants and the impact of sewage outfalls is minimised if not eliminated, but in coastal towns there is the old phenomenon of the public sewer, maybe sometimes even a French drain system going down into the inlet and out into the bay. I have no doubt that there is a serious problem here that should be addressed.

It is particularly relevant to the development of mari-culture and aquaculture because that takes place, in the main, in inlets and in enclosed areas of harbours, my own town being a classic example where there is a sizeable development of mussel farming now to the tune of £1.5 million or £2 million per year. There are a number of problems of nature to contend with, such as Red Tide or toxins in the water created by natural phenomena. If there are any adverse impact on the quality of the water in those inlets over which we have control we should be addressing them. Certainly that is an area the Department of the Environment need to look at. I put it to our own council a few years ago that when the Department are contemplating giving an appropriation to a county council for a big sewage plant in one of the bigger towns, that they wait another year, two years, or even five years, before giving them a treatment plant rather than giving them an ad hoc scheme that does not treat but only has maceration plants for the partial breaking down of solids. That is not treatment.

We have to get away from the myth that because the sewer pipe is going out into the Atlantic Ocean or into the Irish Sea that in some way reduces its effect. Of course it does not. It is something the Department have to take on board because we are now having European water standards imposed on us. A number of beaches have now been deemed to meet the European requirement, which is a pretty onerous requirement. On some of our bigger beaches members of the public congregate to swim with their families and so on. The standard will be raised rather than reduced and this is something the Department would not want to be blasé about. My colleague from Leitrim was correct in saying, it is not entirely fair for us to expect John Citizen in the shape of the farmer, the industrialist or anybody else to put his house in order when the county councils are not doing it.

By and large, it is an exceptionally fine piece of legislation. It is not enough for the agricultural sector anymore to say they do not know or that they have a good defence or that when the farmer washed his slurry tank in the river he did not realise the effluent was going to go down the river for a couple of miles. That kind of blasé attitude just will not work any more and that will be made abundantly clear under this legislation. On the western seaboard in particular where the smaller tributaries run into the lakes there is an inadequacy of funds available to farmers to put these tanks in order especially in the disadvantaged areas where most of the problems are taking place.

The first thing the farmer who is serious about production will do is to put his storage area in order. It is not a good defence anymore, and it is not enough either for the farm organisations, to say they were advised five years ago that a tank was big enough, that they got a grant to provide X number of thousand gallons and that now they need more. If I want to increase the size of my hotel tomorrow morning, I have to do it. Bord Fáilte are not going to do it for me or anybody else, so I do not see why farmers should expect it done. If they are increasing the capacity of their output, if they are increasing the size of their herds, if they are increasing the size of their milk quotas and so on, that is a conscious decision to expand the farm and they must make all the relevant decisions along the line in relation to the containment of slurry and farmyard effluent. That decision is taken in concert with the increasing size of the herd and so on. It is not enough to say that they did not know.

In conclusion, I would like again to congratulate the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of State on this excellent legislation. It copperfastens the Government's commitment to rooting out this serious problem of pollution. It also strengthens the local authorities and the IDA, indicating that we are serious about industrial pollution as well in that we have legislation in position that will protect our environment. The main attraction to industrialists in coming here in the first place is the quality of the environment. Let us have no doubt about that. I have had occasion to meet industrialists quite often and the one common denominator in the attractiveness of this country to them is the quality of life, the quality of the environment and the fact that we still have clean watercourses, clean lakes and suitable beaches for their children to swim in. That is what this Bill seeks to protect. It allows us to continue to say to our European partners, and indeed to the whole world, that this is a relatively pollution-free environment.

Mr. O'Shea

In general I would welcome the Bill. One of the important features is the increase in fines. I remember an instance in my own area where animal blood was poured into a feeder river into the east Waterford water scheme and but for the vigilance of a member of staff who happened to have a day off at that time it could very well have happened without the knowledge of the people running the water treatment plant. The type of virus contained in animal blood would not have been eliminated by the treatment which the water would undergo and there could have been a major problem for a water supply that was supplying Waterford city and the eastern part of the county. What transpired following the court case showed the great weakness in the law up to now in that only a £100 fine was imposed by the court in this case. In general increasing the fines, and, more important, providing that the fines be paid to the local authorities, is very welcome.

Senator O'Callaghan touched on the question of the number of staff necessary to implement the various responsibilities that are put on local authorities regarding water sources. There is one feeder river to the east Waterford scheme, the Clodagh River, and Waterford County Council identified 80 possible pollution sources along the catchment of that river. In order to properly monitor the pollution sources our staff would be lucky to get three of them properly done in a day. Divide three into 80, and that is just one feeder river in the county. As Senator O'Callaghan has suggested, I would ask the Minister to look at the question of raising the embargo in the public service so that sufficient staff would be provided in order to properly police possible pollution sources.

Last Monday at a meeting of Waterford County Council I sought reports regarding the nitrate levels in the drinking water in the county and I was pleased that our water sources are well within the standards required. It has come to my notice that four million people in Britain are drinking water which is outside the EC standards and there is a strong school of thought building up at the moment that nitrates contained in drinking water can contribute to cancer. I was pleased that in the county I represent we have no problem, but we will have to be vigilant in the future.

Another matter which concerns me, and which I raised previously at a county council meeting, is the aluminium content in drinking water. Again, the aluminium content in the drinking water in County Waterford was well within the limits. We are all aware of the present school of thought that aluminium in drinking water is one of the causes of Alzheimer's Disease, which causes premature senility. One of the interesting points that came from the staff of the water treatment laboratory in Adamstown in County Waterford was that while the water was fine, if you boiled water in an aluminium container, the aluminium content of the water increased fifty-fold. I wonder if we have a general problem there. It is one the Minister might look at under another head.

On the general question of bathing places — very relevant to the county I come from — they are a very important part of the tourism industry there. Last Monday at a meeting of Waterford County Council I put a question asking whether our methods of discharging sewage could be giving rise to the algae present off the Waterford coast, indeed off the whole south coast, during the summer of last year. This particular algae has an unpleasant smell if it is left on beaches but it is not a health hazard and it does not cause fish kills. The "Red Tide", which has been prevalent in the North Sea, has given rise to substantial fish kills in the North Sea. I ask the Minister, as part of his approach on this Bill, to examine the causes of the algae which showed up off the south coast last year. It obviously has something to do with nutrients being discharged into the water. I had it examined in County Waterford. The evidence there is that County Waterford did not contribute to it, but something is contributing to it. It is possible that something is coming down from the Irish Sea.

That brings me to another matter, which is not within the remit of the Bill but is still a very important and frightening area, and that is nuclear pollution. Pollution from Sellafield has been traced to the North Sea, up through the Irish Sea and across through the Pentland Firth. The type of nuclear pollution there is caesium. The great problem with this is that it has a 300 year lifespan, that it still can be contaminating after 300 years. If that is able to go up through the Irish Sea, around Scotland and into the North Sea, I would be very concerned about the Irish Sea and what may be happening to our beaches. Is this type of nuclear pollution coming in on our shores?

I know that the broad question of Sellafield has been pursued by this Government and by the previous Government. I am not happy with what is happening. As well as caesium there is also plutonium 237, which is a highly toxic pollutant. This is present in quite an amount of marine life. Pollution of our waters does not rest solely with local authorities and with the measures contained in this Bill. In the UK in 1977 they had only 27 beaches inside the limits laid down and in 1985 half their beaches were not within the required limit. Thankfully, that is not the position in this country, but we must be vigilant.

At the meeting of Waterford County Council last Monday I asked that at our next meeting we should start the forward planning for sewage discharge from the two main sewage discharge areas in the county, Tramore and Dungarvan. There is not a problem now, but as the population increases those problems will be there. All our local authorities in the maritime areas, where we are discharging directly into the sea, should be encouraged to start their forward planning now and a programme should be put together by the Government, whether through EC moneys or Exchequer funds, so that we will remain well on top of the situation, because it is one of our major attractions as a tourist nation.

I welcome the Bill but I believe there is no room for complacency. Forward planning from the Minister's Department, particularly in the area of sewage discharge, is very important in order that we stay on top of the situation. Capital moneys are necessary. In order that this Bill can be fully and properly implemented by local authorities, I would ask the Minister to provide the staff to properly monitor the situation so that this instrument which is now available to local authorities can be used to the maximum effect.

An Cathaoirleach

Before I call on the Minister, I must make a comment. It is only when there is legislation like this before the Seanad that you see the value of serving on local government.

Mr. O'Shea

Indeed.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Connolly)

I want to thank all the Members of the House for their great contributions to this Bill and for the welcome they have given it.

This Bill was brought in because of pollution in the River Barrow that flows through my county which created a lot of problems almost two years ago but which now, thankfully, have been overcome. At that time I arranged immediately with my Department that a circular be issued explaining in detail the powers of the local authorities. Some local authorities were rather reluctant to implement those powers and they took the easy option, possibly because they did not want to offend some people. I want to say that, as far as the Government and the Minister are concerned, we want to make it quite clear that we want the law that is now on the Statute Book implemented, but this new Bill gives very far-reaching rights to local authorities.

Some Senators asked if we had the personnel in the local authorities to look after the regulations and see that they were being implemented. I must point out that the same amount of work in construction is not taking place now as was the case some years ago. It is up to local authorities to plan the use of their employees to the best of their ability. It has not been brought to my notice that any local authority has not got the personnel to deal with this.

We can bring in all the laws possible, but to be sucessful we must get the cooperation of everybody concerned, such as the farming community, industry and the public in general. We must have their support. I am glad that many local authorities, many of our schools and of our environmental organisations have done excellent work in explaining in leaflets through schools, local authorities, health boards and the other organisations involved.

This Bill when it becomes law will give far-reaching powers to the local authorities in this field. There is more awareness now of this very important matter. The importance of putting their own house in order is now coming home to everybody. It is not good enough for any group to come along with haphazard planning. Even without this Bill the local authorities, under the Planning Acts, had wide-ranging powers in this regard, but there had been a "softly, softly" approach by some authorities.

Many speakers referred to improvements that should be brought about to our sewage treatment plants. Since 1980 some £300 million has been spent on sewage treatment plants in this country and successive Governments had to find that money. Where did they find it? You all know, and I do not want to lecture Senators on it. This year £63 million will be spent. We are approving the schemes that are most needed. Both the Minister and I would like to have more finance to get more schemes going, but there is a limit to the purse and you cannot have it both ways. You cannot ask me or anyone else for financial rectitude and then ask for more money for other schemes. To be fair, there is a realisation that there is a limit to the purse and an understanding of the problem and I thank you for that and I appreciate many of the important points that have been raised. In the Dublin and Kildare areas major improvements have been brought about to the sewerage schemes in the past two years, and this is to be welcomed. Admittedly, local authorities can be prosecuted under the Act.

Local authority prosecutions against polluters in 1987 numbered 156. Notices issued under section 12 requiring measures to be taken to prevent pollution came to a total of 825. The number of advice warning letters was 3,917. Investigations in respect of waters and discharges to sewers were carried out in no less than 7,000 cases. Local authorities, where it has been brought to their notice, have sent their officials around to see those who have to do what I would call a tidying up of their operations and have told them to get their houses in order. There is no excuse for any individual or company not to comply with that. I will not tolerate it. If you have not got your house in order, you will see here that notices have been served. Some have ignored them in the past, but we will not tolerate that now and the full rigour of the law will apply. I think all of you here will agree with me that, where it is brought to the attention of the authority concerned that action should be taken the local authority moves and tells the persons concerned to get their house in order. That is reasonable to ask.

Many Senators strayed from the text of the Bill, but I did not mind that as I am a bit of a wanderer myself at times, and it is a wide-ranging Bill. I know that everybody in this House is concerned when it comes to pollution.

The fishery boards have been very active also in this and have pointed out the various problems in regard to it. Immediately after a spillage took place on the Barrow the Government set up a ministerial task force to examine the situation and this Bill is the result of that action. We consulted with a great number of organisations, individuals and local authorities. The officials of my Department met many associations on it. The main objective was to bring in a Bill that would stand up legally and constitutionally.

We can debate this Bill in more detail on Committee Stage. If there are suitable amendments to be made to it, I will certainly go along with them if they improve the Bill. Indeed, I would be grateful for any suitable amendments to improve it. I know that all of us would like to see a good Bill put on the Statute Book which would stand up and operate effectively. When we get down to the sections of the Bill, which will deal with the nitty-gritty of this legislation in detail, we will then see what improvements we can make.

My officials and myself have taken notes of all the very important points that were made by Senators. We will then proceed to have them examined and see what improvements can be made. I do not think there was ever a Bill in either House that was not open to amendment and improvement on Committee Stage, even improvement by the Minister of the day and the same will apply now. Again, my sincere thanks to the Cathaoirleach and to all the Members of this House for their very favourable contributions on the Bill and, above all, the welcome which you gave it.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 22 February 1989.

Sitting suspended at 5.30 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 15 Feb 1989

Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Bill, 1989: Second Stage (Resumed)

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Feb 1989