Amendments Nos. 1 and 45 are related and may be discussed together.
Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Bill, 1989: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
On a point of order, what is the consequence of taking amendments Nos. 1 and 45 together? They are both related to section 2 of the Principal Act but they are not related in terms of their intent.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
If there is not agreement in the House it is easy to take them separately. It is not a big deal from that point of view.
Would it be possible, if it came to it, to have a separate decision on amendment No. 45?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
If the House decides.
Thank you.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 1 and 45 are being discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, before section 2 to insert a new section as follows:
2.—Section 2 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by—
(a) the deletion in subsection (1) of "by order" and the substitution therefor of "as soon as may be practicable, and if necessary,
(b) the deletion in subsection (3) of "as he considers appropriate" and "in his opinion",
(c) the deletion of subsection (9).".
In moving this amendment our intention is to strengthen the position of the Water Pollution Advisory Council which, I understand, is not in operation at present. Basically we are seeking to delete "by order" in subsection (1). The subsection would then read: "That the Minister shall after consultation with any other Minister who appears to him to be interested appoint a body which shall be known as the Water Pollution Advisory Council and is in this section referred to as the Council." The second part of it relates to confining to some extent the powers of the Minister relevant to the council. What we seek here is that subsection (3) of section 2 of the Principal Act would read: "The Minister shall take such steps to keep the Council informed of matters relating to the control of water pollution which are likely to assist the Council in performing the functions assigned to it by subsection (2) of this section" Finally, we are seeking to revoke section 9 of the Principal Act: "The Minister may by order amend or revoke an order under this section".
In the UK it is alleged that four million people are drinking water that is above the EC levels for nitrate content and there is a strong feeling abroad that the amount of nitrates consumed in drinking water may have some relation to cancer. The Government have abolished An Foras Forbartha and the regional development organisations and we believe that it is all the more necessary now to have a strong water pollution advisory council. I understand the previous council consisted of county engineers and various interest groups. Councils like this may get up the nose of Ministers at times.
I ask the Minister to look at this amendment not in the context of his own stewardship but in a situation where possibly at a future time there could be a Minister who may not be as committed to solving pollution problems as he is. This council would also provide a forum for an exchange of views based on the experience of various local authorities and in general be a body that could react quickly to developing situations. For instance, there may be some reason at the moment to believe that nitrate and potassium levels in drinking water are on the increase.
Basically, we are seeking to ensure that there is a strong Water Pollution Advisory Council as is set out in the Principal Act and that there should be a yearly report to the Minister which would be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Slipped in at the tail-end of this Bill, in section 30 is a proposal to repeal a number of sections of the Principal Act. Among those is the proposal to repeal section 2. Effectively, as the explanatory memorandum says, section 2 concerns the appointment, composition and functions of the Water Pollution Advisory Council. Contained in a Bill whose objective, much trumpeted, is to do a wonderful job to improve the quality of the waters in this country, we actually have a proposal to abolish the Water Pollution Advisory Council. I do not know a lot about the Water Pollution Advisory Council but I have Parts I and II of "Water Quality in Ireland — The Current Position" produced by An Foras Forbartha. This was prepared by the institute for the Water Pollution Advisory Council in 1983.
I am at a loss to understand how the Minister can on the one hand tell us that he is committed to rescuing our waters from the imminent peril they are in — and this report quite clearly identifies one major imminent peril in the area of eutrophication — when he abolished the body which carried out the study of water quality and he is now abolishing the body which was set up to give advice about water quality. I do not think it is possible to be overly impressed with the Minister's commitment on this issue if he is abolishing all the independent agencies which could advise him and tell us what was actually happening. My amendment, No. 45, suggests that the Water Pollution Advisory Council ought to be left in existence because independent advice, untrammelled by day to day considerations and not hamstrung by the Official Secrets Act, if that is possible, is what we need in this country.
I said on Second Stage that it was a matter of regret that the Minister did not have an opportunity to reply in the same depth to Second Stage as his immediate predecessor in that seat today, the Minister for Justice, has done on a couple of occasions. His junior Minister replied with a collection of platitudes and assurances of serious consideration on Committee Stage but with no response to the specific issues that were raised on Second Stage. That is not the first time that has happened. It happened on another Bill last July, and I regret that. Members ought to know what the Minister's views are on specific issues raised on Second Stage. One of the specific issues I raised was the question of the Water Pollution Advisory Council and the absence of independence. What we need in our society for a clean environment are regulation, enforcement and independence. The regulations to a certain extent have been produced, though the 1977 Act was not exactly enthusiastically enforced in large areas. We can talk about enforcement at a later stage. Independence is a critical part of it if public trust is to be restored in the willingness and indeed the capacity of statutory authorities to enforce high standards of water protection. The abolition of An Foras Forbartha, followed now by the proposed abolition of the Water Pollution Advisory Council, is an entirely retrograde step. I do not believe in the trust me I know what I am doing type of environmental protection. The real basis for environmental protection is openness, the full and complete provision of information and regular monitoring and the provision of that information to the public at large. I heard the Minister speak eloquently when he was in London about the obligation of each individual to protect the environment. It will be very difficult for any individual to contribute to the protection of our environment if most of the information is locked inside the Minister's Department or locked inside local authorities without having any independent monitoring or information gathering agency available to tell the public what is going on.
I regret very much the Minister's proposal to abolish the Water Pollution Advisory Council. However lacking in teeth that body may have been, that is a further step in the wrong direction.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. Tuigim go maith go bhfuil sé dáiríre faoi na cúrsaí seo ach b'fhéidir nach dtuigeann sé i gcónaí cé chomh práinneach agus atá rudaí áirithe chomh fada is a bhaineann siad le truailliú uisce agus mar sin de. Níl mé ag fáil lochta air ar aon bhealach ach aontaím leis an méid atá ráite ag an bheirt a labhair romham.
I congratulate the Minister for the stand he took in relation to other forms of pollution in Europe the other day. As my mother would say, that gave them their tae in a mug. I hope that he will do something about this part of the Bill.
The Bill appears to strengthen considerably many aspects of the 1977 Act and closes many gaps that existed in that Act. I am very worried about section 2 of the Act, which is being repealed. It means, as other Senators mentioned, that the Water Pollution Advisory Council is being abolished. I was on the Shannon yesterday and was quite horrified when I saw the closeness of some of the areas of pollution, such as silage pits, etc., to the water's edge. It will be very difficult to control a lot of the pollution that we will be faced with in the future.
I keep emphasising how important our waterways are. We do not value our waterways. Some of us do. Some farmers are extremely worried at the present situation but there are some who do not worry about it and will try to get away with as much as they can. The Water Pollution Advisory Council did some very useful work and I hope that the Minister will reconsider that decision.
The effect of these amendments would be to provide for the continued operation of the Water Pollution Advisory Council. Senator O'Shea's amendment would entail a less formalised arrangement than obtains under the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977, while Senator Ryan seeks to maintain the status quo.
The term of office of the last council ended on 31 December 1986. In previous years the council was active in promoting an appreciation of the importance of clean water and the need to avoid pollution. It commissioned a number of reports on environmental issues, notably the 1983 review of water pollution in Ireland. At that time the work of the council effectively filled a vacuum that existed. There have been some developments in recent years which have tended to diminish the score for an effective role for the Water Pollution Advisory Council in these areas. The council's function in promoting awareness of water pollution issues was taken over by the Environmental Awareness Bureau in 1985. With the abolition of that body in 1988 it has now reverted to the Department of the Environment and the environmental research unit. In addition, environmental awareness promotion directed at the farming sector is now catered for by the newly established farm environmental advisory service within Teagasc. Teagasc has organised seminars, courses and practical demonstrations in every county. The service also offers farm assessments and advice on pollution prevention measures to individual farmers. Recently, the Department of the Environment and Agriculture and Food co-operated on the production and distribution to approximately 200,000 farmers of a booklet on farm pollution called Farmyard Wastes and Pollution.
As regards the commissioning and publication of reports on water pollution, I assure Senators that the absence of the council will not result in any diminution of activity in this area. In fact, my Department commissioned a further review of water quality in Ireland, which was published in 1987. That is the one that Senator Ryan has in his possession today and he also had it with him on Second Stage. It might be interesting to note that it was the Department of the Environment who asked An Foras Forbartha to do that report in 1987. It was prepared at our request, not at the request of any other party or body. I intend that such periodic reviews will continue and will be produced in the future by the Environmental Research Unit. They will also be published.
The decision to abolish the council as provided for in section 30 of the Bill reflects the Government's commitment to rationalise the manner in which public services are provided. I cannot accept these amendments. I would remind Senators that the advisory body referred to by them got involved in useful work so far as the publication and circulation of leaflets and posters were concerned. It also commissioned some reports. None of that activity has diminished: in fact, it has increased in volume under the new arrangements.
I should like to put at rest one particular item that has cropped up on more than one occasion and has been referred to again here by Senator Ryan in so far as An Foras Forbartha and the Environmental Research Unit are concerned. The Environmental Research Unit is collecting and publishing information and it will continue to do so. The Official Secrets Act applies to it in the same way as the Official Secrets Act applied to An Foras Forbartha and to suggest or imply that there is any difference is misleading.
I might refer to the remarks made by Senator O'Shea. In passing, it is interesting to note that there is no problem in this country of nitrates in drinking water. It might also be wise to remember that the Water Pollution Advisory Council the Senator referred to had nothing whatever to do with the question of drinking water.
In those circumstances I feel that the new arrangements are an improvement on what existed in so far as the advisory council was concerned. It is my intention, with the new agencies which now exist, to continue to provide the level of information and the publishing of that information, as was the case in the past but at an expanded rate now. For that reason I cannot accept the amendments.
The Minister is right. The reports I have in front of me were actually produced by his Department. It was an earlier report that the Water Pollution Advisory Council commissioned from An Foras Forbartha. I am quite happy to be corrected by the Minister. Since I probably mentioned it on Second Stage he could have corrected it then if he had been here and it would have avoided the error. I am sorry about that.
The issue is not just the Water Pollution Advisory Council. The issue is how we create a clean environment in this country and how we manage to do that in tandem with proper economic development. The increasing evidence — the Minister may not be aware of this — is of overwhelming popular distrust of the agencies of the State in their role as defenders of our environment.
Not true.
It is true. I tried not to interrupt the Minister, he should not interrupt me. He does not know the state of public opinion that exists in the lower harbour in Cork and in east Cork over certain industrial developments. He must not be aware of what is happening in the country. The one thing I would not accuse the Minister of is being unaware of what is happening in the country. He has a very close ear to what is happening. We will just have to disagree on that point.
I know and I am satisfied that there is an increasing popular distrust, an increasing belief that local authorities cannot be trusted to protect the environment and that State agencies cannot be trusted to protect the environment. The outrageous attack by the manager of the IDA on environmental groups is the sort of thing that confirms people's view that the State is on one side and the environment is on the other. It does not help to do that sort of thing. Drawing all these resources into the Department is not the way to do it. It is important to remember that important sections of the 1977 Act, like section 15 relating to water management plants——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are dealing with amendment No. 1 at this stage.
I thought we were dealing with amendment No. 45 as well.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Yes.
It is my mistake. It was not for me to withdraw amendment No. 1. I am sorry. The reason I am talking about these things is that the question is the appropriateness of drawing the functions of a body like the Water Pollution Advisory Council into the Department. The point I am making is that I am of the opinion — I think the facts bear it out — that there is increasing public distrust. The Hanrahan case in south Tipperary and the apparent lack of a capacity, willingness or ability on the part of State agencies to protect the owner of that farm or to identify the problems on the farm, necessitating for him an extremely stressful passage through the Supreme Court, does not help public opinion. The fact that smells in Cork harbour cannot be identified does not help public opinion. The gross inadequacies in some of the studies that were done for the Killeagh project does not help public opinion. It is not the way to convince public opinion to draw these functions into a State agency under direct political control of the Minister of the day.
I am aware of the fact — the Minister has said it on at least one occasion — that members of An Foras Forbartha were covered by the Officials Secrets Act. That was a most regrettable fact but drawing the body closer to the apparatus of State does not somehow excuse that. What we needed was legislative independence for bodies like An Foras Forbartha so that they could become effective environmental protection agencies, operating independently of politics, of pressure groups and simply defining base line standards and enforcing them where they saw fit.
It is an unfortunate fact that no industry proposed by the Industrial Development Authority, to my knowledge, has ever been refused planning permission by any local authority. Effectively, the only real filter we have is the Industrial Development Authority. If they say it is all right, then everybody else apparently organises themselves to go along with it. That is not the way to convince the public that we have effective environmental protection. There are multiple instances in this Bill of ambiguities which I do not believe are the way to reassure the public.
Section 15 of the Principal Act to do with water quality management plans, is barely started. In the case of only four river areas have water pollution management plans been completed. No local authority has ever been directed to produce such a plan and in the case of most rivers plans are in preparation and will be produced at some stage in the future.
Section 26, which gives the Minister the authority to specify standards for sewage effluent, has never been used to specify standards for sewage effluent. It is a question again of "trust me, I know what I am doing, it will all happen eventually." The record of central Government on enforcement of specific areas of legislation in existence for 12 years does not reassure the public. Therefore, to draw back into that Department areas of activity which could have given some semblance of independence is the wrong way to go.
It is not simply the existence of the Water Pollution Advisory Council that is at issue here. It is the philosophical background to such a decision of centralising areas of activity back into the Department. I know material will be published, I know material can be published. I am not certain that all material will be published at any stage in the future because the controversies are going to get worse, not better. As the Minister is aware, we are running into a world environmental crisis and serious decisions and choices will have to be made. It will not be solved by platitudes and by simply hoping for the best. It will be solved by public opinion learning and knowing what is happening to our country. That will happen only when people believe they are getting reliable, independent and trustworthy information, untrammelled by concerns about the views of the IDA or local authorities or anybody else about the need for one thing or another. We need independent information. This section as it stands is moving against creating a proper climate of public opinion.
I want to approach this constructively and I would like to say at the outset that I believe the Minister is making every effort to improve our legislation. There is one misgiving I still have — Senator Ryan has alluded to this to some extent. In regard to the Water Pollution Advisory Council, there was an independence there. I would ask the Minister does the same independence exist with his Environmental Research Bureau? Is that purely internal in the Department? From the terms of reference here the Minister can set up the type of water pollution advisory council he wishes and ask various interest groups in. There are people in the environmental lobby who perhaps could cause a lot of annoyance to Ministers and so on, but these people have their place as part of a process and I believe that we should cater for them under legislation. I share the misgivings of Senator Ryan about centralising everything into the Department. I would prefer to be in the situation where we have a relatively independent organisation monitoring the scene.
With regard to what I said about nitrate in drinking water, this is caused in the main by water courses becoming polluted with nitrates from agricultural uses and there is some evidence that this problem may be increasing in the country. It is something that needs to be watched very carefully because, as the Minister knows, once the nitrates and, indeed, potassium are in water courses, it takes a long, long time to clear water courses again. If the Minister can assure me that there will be independent monitoring away from very direct control inside the Department, I certainly would be happy to withdraw the amendment.
I would go along with every attempt to improve the legislation to avoid pollution of any sort in waterways. It is essential that there would be an independent body to monitor possible sources of pollution because there is a genuine fear among the people now — and this fear must be allayed — that there is not enough manpower in the first instance to do the monitoring that is necessary. The very last line in the explanatory memorandum with this Bill says that the Bill does not give rise to any additional financing or staffing costs. If there is now such public awareness about pollution, the dangers and possible sources of pollution, how can all possible sources be monitored properly without additional staff or additional cost? The staff is simply not there in local authorities to do that. The great fear of the people is that we will end up with legislation on paper that will not improve the situation on the ground. As previous speakers said, we are going to hear more and more about pollution and the sources of pollution because there is now a genuine public awareness about pollution and the dangers of it.
Could I ask the Minister what the function of the Central Fisheries Board will be in monitoring pollution? I find them an excellent body. I have never reported a case of pollution to them that they have not reacted to it. They have sent out their inspectors and, indeed, have brought culprits to court as a result of the inspection. What function will they be playing in relation to pollution?
In reply to Senator de Buitléar there is no change at all in so far as the fishery bodies are concerned. They are unaffected by this legislation. So there is no change there.
I would have to say that the issue we are talking about is the question of the Water Pollution Advisory Body in so far as the substance of these amendments is concerned. It should be remembered that the Water Pollution Advisory Body never did any monitoring of anything ever and it had no staff to do that kind of thing. So we must not get the issue confused. I am not satisfied that there is any increased distrust in the public mind in so far as agencies controlling or advising on environmental matters are concerned. I am going to make it quite clear as to why I think that.
An Foras Forbartha is referred to continuously in this debate. It might be of interest to Senators to remember that An Foras Forbartha, throughout its complete life of some 23 to 25 years, was chaired by a civil servant of Assistant Secretary status for the entire period of its life. Everybody is telling me how magnificently independent it was, a super independent body. So let us at least remember that it was chaired by a civil servant for its lifetime. Let us remember also that its work programme throughout its entire existence was approved by the Department. In addition, it was financed virtually in its entirety by departmental funds. This is the body that I am continually reminded was a super independent body and had the freedom to do this, that and the other. So be it. My case is made. The Environmental Research Unit will have the same freedom. There will be no difference. It is not going to have any restrictions placed upon it other than were placed on An Foras Forbartha in so far as the Official Secrets Act was concerned. That was a red herring I disposed of in the other House on more than one occasion. It is not now being canvassed anywhere. I would have to say, just to make it an even stronger situation still in so far as the publishing and the giving of information to the general public on all matters concerned with its activity are concerned and, in fact, on environmental matters generally, I am taking the unique step inside the next few weeks, as announced by myself at the recent Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis, that a new information unit is being set up by me in the Department, which will be available not just to students of the environment but individual groups or members of the general public to seek information about any matter that we have a responsibility for.
That is the most advanced step ever taken by any Minister for the Environment since the foundation of this State. That kind of openness pervades the whole system that I have created in so far as the environment is concerned down from the Custom House and for the life of me I cannot understand why some Senators will persist in trying to see that in some way there is a curtailment now of independence in so far as An Foras Forbartha's replacement is concerned when you recognise the history, the formation, the financing and the staffing of that body. Let us at least be square about it. This amendment cannot stand up in those circumstances.
Senator McCormack raised the question about staff matters. What I am saying is that I see nothing wrong in having qualified engineers carrying out monitoring work for local authorities or agencies involved in monitoring. If there is excess staff in certain areas because of depleted programmes or changed programmes of activity by authorities, then there is nothing wrong with deploying existing staff to deal with matters related to monitoring of the environment. They are increasingly involved in that kind of work.
The Minister very nicely said that there might be excess staff in county councils because of changes in work procedures. If this Bill becomes law will the local authorities have the same function and how can they carry out that added responsibility if, as the Minister acknowledges, there is change in circumstances? A change in circumstances means cut-backs in local authority budgets. They cannot have the same number of staff. Staff being let go are not replaced. In those circumstances how can they take on the extra responsibilities involved in this Bill without some other aspect of their work suffering?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair would remind the Deputy that we are discussing amendment No. 1 and amendment No. 45 to section 2. It is fairly narrow.
That refers to the independence of the body carrying out the work.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Surely, the Water Pollution Advisory Council comes under section 2 of the Principal Act.
If I had clarification about the responsibilities of the county council after this Bill becomes law, perhaps that would clear the matter and we could get on to the next business.
I put it like this to the Senator that local authorities deploy whatever staff they have available to them to best advantage. Do not forget the existing Act. The Principal Act is already part of the responsibility and they are in fact carrying out their functions under it. Despite what some Senators might suggest, they do take action on a wide range of subjects under the Act. In fact, several cases were taken in the recent past in the southern part of Ireland and are currently being processed through the courts. We know of some famous High Court actions that are currently being processed there as well. It is not right to say that they are not active in carrying out their functions as indicated. If Senator McCormack had been here during the Second Stage debate, I gave in quite some detail the total staff, technicians, hydrologists, administrative staff, engineers and others. I gave the details of the numbers employed in a professional way in applying this legislation. As far as I am concerned, not a bad foireann le haghaidh na hoibre. In those circumstances, while I recognise the Senator's point that local authorities of course would love to have extra staff — everybody wants extra staff — I am satisfied that the staffing arrangements and the possibilities for redeployment and the deployment of existing staff into works related to the environment are adequate to deal with the matter, as instanced by the increased level of activity in prosecutions and court hearings last year.
In the interest of accuracy, I was here for the Minister's speech and all of the Second Stage debate.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment No. 1 withdrawn?
It is not withdrawn.
Amendment put and declared lost.
SECTION 2.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 3, to delete lines 24 and 25 and substitute the following:
"‘fisheries region' has the meaning assigned to it by the Fisheries Act, 1980, and includes the Foyle Area, within the meaning of the Foyle Fisheries Act, 1952;
‘regional board' has the meaning assigned to it by the Fisheries Act, 1980, and includes the Foyle Fisheries Commission;".
This amendment is intended to cater for the Foyle Fisheries Commission to ensure that it is included in the definition of regional boards and that the Foyle area is included in the definition of the fisheries region. The commission was included in the definition of board of conservators in section 1 of the 1977 Act and as powers have now passed to the regional boards from the boards of conservators the amendment is necessary to maintain the position existing under the 1977 Act. It is necessary to have it done properly. I would ask the House to agree.
The powers were transferred from the board of conservators to the fisheries boards. What will be the position? The last time there was a major debate in the Seanad on a related matter it was indicated that the fisheries boards were under scrutiny, that there was a debate going on and a report out, in fact that the fisheries boards would be abolished. Would that have an effect on this? Supposing that power were transferred to the fisheries boards and then, according to the plans of the Government of about a year ago, the fisheries boards went out of existence, where would the power go, or is the idea of abolishing the fisheries boards now abandoned altogether?
The simple answer to that is, of course, that the local authorities and the fishery boards have parallel powers under this legislation. That is the whole idea. The matter that Senator McCormack referred to does not arise. They have parallel powers.
What if the fisheries board are not there after a while?
The local authorities have the same powers.
It will then be transferred to the local authorities solely?
Even should that position arise, there is no legislation required to change that.
Is the Minister indicating that the fisheries boards will stay in existence?
No. I do not know. It is not for me to say. It is a matter for the Minister for the Marine. All I am saying is that the powers contained here are repeated verbatim so far as the fisheries are concerned. You could ask the same question in reverse: if the local authorities were abolished would they transfer?
Is that not true?
Is the Senator promoting it himself?
No. I am against that.
We are all against that.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
On section 3, the good defence clause, though not abolished, puts greater onus on the defendant to prove that he or she could not have seen the implications of his or her actions or lack thereof. It would be better if the defence clause was removed altogether.
An taon rud amháin atá le rá agam don Seanadóir ná sin í an chomhairle atá faighte agam ón Ard-Fheidir agus caithfidh mé cloí leis.
I welcome that. It clarifies the position of the original subsection (5) (a) which led to considerable confusion as it suggested that some trade effluents could be exempted. It is now evident that only a trade effluent for which a licence exists is exempt. Section 3 (2) (a) is a welcome amendment. It allows provision to amend Acts which conferred exemptions on certain activities such as Shannon Electricity Act, 1925, Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, Turf Development Act, 1946, and Local Authority (Works) Act, 1949. This came against the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board on the Dargle River only last summer when they were working on a bridge there. Some of the material got into the river and of course there was a very serious fish kill and they did not succeed in bringing the council to court.
I am worried about the effluent. I would ask the Minister to start moving as quickly as possible on that amendment, especially in relation to the Turf Development Act, in relation to Bord na Móna. There are some terrible problems with silt on the Oranmore River, in Tullaghan Bay, the draft netting pollution of beaches and the effect on shell fish stocks in the Ballycroy area and also in the River Deel and Lough Conn. I know that Bord na Móna have done some work and they do not admit that they are at fault; but salmon cannot spawn, shell fish have been affected and I think it is most unfair that the board can get away with this sort of thing. I would ask the Minister to act on that amendment.
I am aware of many of the matters referred to by Senator de Buitléar, in particular the Ballycroy one in my own constituency. It is quite extraordinary how you can have sea pollution attached to some of these discharges or poor management. This gives the opportunity to tighten up on that. He may also be aware of Lough Derg. Sediment is building up there, too, to an unacceptable level. He can be happy in the knowledge that I would be aware of these things and that this gives us an opportunity of strengthening our hand in that regard.
It is now 6.30 p.m. If I recall correctly, we agreed on the Order of Business to move item No. 4 at 6.30 p.m. Would the Acting Leader of the House indicate what is happening?
I move that we take the motion.
When will we resume the Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Bill?
That is a matter for the House to decide, Senator McCormack. Will we clear section 3 before we move? Senator Brendan Ryan was getting up and perhaps that is reason enough to report progress.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.