This is a Seanad Bill that has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 82, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and it is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question "That the Bill be received for final consideration," the Minister may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil and this is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. The only matters, therefore, that may be discussed are the amendments made by the Dáil. For the convenience of Senators, I have arranged for the printing and circulation to them of these amendments.
Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Bill, 1989 [ Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil ]: Report and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
As Members are aware, they may speak only once on this question. I now call the Minister.
The Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Bill, 1989, has been passed by Dáil Éireann, with amendments. I propose to explain briefly the nature and purpose of those amendments.
Amendment No. 1 inserted in section 2, new definitions of "aquifer", "combined drain" and "sewer". "Aquifer", which is already in section 1 of the 1977 Water Pollution Act, was redefined so as to cater more fully for the requirements of an EC Directive on the protection of groundwater against pollution. "Combined drain" and "sewer" were redefined following a more detailed review of the complex legislation on sewers and drains. The new definitions are intended to ensure the effective operation of the provisions of section 22 of the Bill which will allow sanitary authorities to exercise greater control over trade effluent discharges by issuing licences for individual discharges in situations where up to now only one licence could be issued for the combined effluents from a number of premises.
Amendment No. 2 substituted a revised version of the "good defence" provision in section 3 of the 1977 Act in line with a similar provision contained in the more modern Air Pollution Act. This will entail the application of the best practicable means concept so as to prevent water pollution.
The "good defence" maintains a heavy responsibility on persons who have control of polluting matter to take steps to prevent water pollution from their activities. The amended good defence makes it clear that it is not sufficient to instal appropriate facilities to prevent water pollution; it will also be necessary to use and maintain these facilities so that pollution does not occur.
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but it is normal procedure that a copy of the Minister's script is available to Members. I think it is unfair that——
Personally, I have no control over that matter.
I understand we did not get sufficient copies for everybody but they are being photocopied at the moment.
It would not be normal to wait for that and the Minister has indicated that they are being photocopied. I am sure that as soon as they are available they will be presented to the House.
I am sorry, Senator.
In some situations, taking appropriate measures may entail providing and using facilities such as sufficiently large and well constructed effluent or slurry storage tanks; in others, it may involve complying with the norms of good agricultural practice in relation to quantities and timing of slurry spreading on land.
The amended good defence requires the defendant to prove to the court that the defence provision is applicable in the particular circumstances pertaining to his case. I believe the amendment strikes the right balance and I am confident the courts will apply this provision in a manner such that only absolutely genuine cases will avoid conviction.
Amendment No. 18 also relates to a good defence provision. It deleted the provision in the Bill inserting a good defence in respect of water pollution offences prosecuted by fisheries boards under section 171 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959. This was done because it became clear during the debate in Dáil Éireann that a number of Deputies were concerned that the introduction of such a provision in fisheries legislation might lessen the effectiveness of the boards in protecting water resources. The decision also took account of the views of the Minister for the Marine who considered the case presented by the fisheries boards on the subject and considered it best not to proceed as originally proposed.
Other provisions of the Bill, as passed by the Seanad, will safeguard the powers of the boards to prosecute local local authorities and others under the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959. Senators will be aware that the 1977 Water Pollution Act included a provision to repeal these fisheries board prosecution powers, but that provision was never activated. The Bill will repeal this provision of the 1977 Act entirely.
Amendment No. 3 is a drafting amendment intended to clarify exactly when the decision of a local authority on an application for an effluent discharge licence under section 4 of the 1977 Act will take effect.
Amendment No. 4 deals with water quality management plans. Its main purpose was to provide for an additional amendment to section 15 of the 1977 Act, relating to subsection (6), which concerns the circulation of water quality management plans. Other changes relate essentially to drafting.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related drafting amendments intended to clarify exactly when the decision of a sanitary authority on an application for an effluent discharge licence under section 16 of the 1977 Act will take effect.
Amendment No. 7 was also an amendment to cover drafting points. The purpose of amendment No. 8 was to clarify that only a party from whose premises or lands the cause of the pollution originated will be liable for damages under the statutory civil liability provision in section 20. On a literal interpretation of the wording in the Bill as passed by Seanad Éireann, a person who was not in any way responsible for pollution could have been held liable for it simply because the cause of the pollution, though coming from another's property or premises, managed to reach waters via the person's premises or property. Clearly this was never the intention. The amendment rules out the possibility of an innocent party being held liable for damages.
Amendment No. 9 was also a drafting amendment; — the reference to section 4 (2) in this provision was misleading and superfluous.
Amendment No. 10 related to the by-laws provision in section 21 of the Bill which deals with controls on agricultural activities responsible for water pollution. On further examination of the wording of this provision as passed by the Seanad, it was considered that certain legal problems might have arisen if by-laws came into effect immediately on their making by a local authority and while an appeal to the Minister was still undetermined. In such a situation, and if the by-laws were subsequently amended or annulled, an inequitable situation might arise in relation to any enforcement action taken by a local authority in the meantime. The amendment provides a more workable way of making and approving by-laws. It will ensure that by-laws will not come into effect until approved by the Minister, who will also have power to refuse to approve them or to direct the local authority concerned to amend them in a specified manner. The amendment also provided that the Minister will be deemed to have given his approval to the proposed by-laws after a period of six months has elapsed since the last date for representations on the proposals in the absence of a decision before then.
Amendments Nos. 11 to 15 were all related drafting amendments to section 22 which allows a sanitary authority to make an order declaring a combined drain to be a sewer. As I stated when dealing with amendment No. 1, the section will allow sanitary authorities to exercise controls on an individual basis where trade effluents discharge to combined drains.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 were amendments to rectify errors in drafting. In the case of amendment No. 16, the reference to the Act of 1959 was not necessary as the provisions of section 23 of the Bill are already applicable to offences under the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, by virtue of section 311 of that Act.
Amendment No. 19 provided for an extended time limit for prosecution of summary offences where evidence of the offence only comes to light some time after the event. At present the time limit for initiating summary proceedings is six months in all cases. This six month limit will continue to apply to the vast majority of offences, most of which are detectable within a short period of the incident. However, in certain types of cases the pollution may not be detected for some time. An example of the type of case involved might be where groundwater was being polluted. In this type of incident evidence of the offence might only come to light months or years later.
This amendment ensures that the six month time limit will only begin to run from the time evidence comes to light enabling a summary prosecution to be taken, even though more than six months may have passed since the offence was committed.
The purpose of amendment No. 20 was to allow local authorities, sanitary authorities and regional fisheries boards to recover the costs and expenses reasonably incurred by them in preparing for all prosecutions, whether summary prosecutions taken by those authorities or boards themselves, or prosecutions on indictment taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The section as passed by Seanad Éireann provided only for the recovery of costs and expenses incurred by these authorities when prosecuting summary offences. It is obviously desirable to widen the provision to provide for recovery from the convicted person or body of the costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the local or sanitary authority or regional board in preparing for prosecutions on indictment.
The last two amendments, Nos. 21 and 22, deal with the commencement section. They will ensure that this legislation, apart from the particular sections mentioned, will come into operation as soon as it is enacted. The sections involved relate to three areas only, involving effluent discharge licence applications, reviews of licences, and procedural matters concerning appeals to An Bord Pleanála. The number of sections listed in the amendment reflects the existence of separate, though essentially identical, legislative provisions for effluents discharged to waters and effluents discharged to sewers.
It is not feasible to bring these various sections into effect immediately. If we were to do so, regulations made under the sections of the Water Pollution Act, 1977, which are being replaced by the Bill, including such fundamental ones as those dealing with procedural aspects of appeals to An Bord Pleanála, would cease to apply. It will be necessary, accordingly, to prepare revised regulations in anticipation of the coming into operation of these sections.
The overall objective of the Bill is to strengthen the powers available to local authorities to prevent and deal with water pollution. It should have an immediate effect. The provisions catering for increased penalties, measures to mitigate and remedy the effects of pollution at the polluters expense, civil liabilities for pollution damage, greater controls on agriculture, improved access to relevant information by local authorities, recovery of their costs in taking prosecutions and provision for individual controls on industrial effluents discharging to combined drains, are the major items of this new legislation and they will all come into operation once the Bill is signed by the President.
I commend the amendments to the House.
By and large I welcome the amendments. It is right and proper that the amendments should have been made to this legislation. None of us can condone pollution of any type which, undoubtedly, in the past has done tremendous damage to our rivers and lakes. All too often, particularly in the eighties, tremendous damage was caused to our fish stocks as a result of water pollution. No one can condone that situation.
Amendment No. 2 strengthens the powers of the local authority with regard to dealing with farm effluent and slurry storage in particular. That is an area which has caused problems in the past. Nobody can condone the way in which some farmers dispose of slurry or effluent. It is right and proper that adequate provision should be made in the Bill.
But, having said that, I think there must be a balance. It is important to hit the right balance because it was never envisaged that local authorities should be hounding farmers day in, day out, with regard to pollution problems. Nobody can condone pollution, but there has to be a balance between allowing people to carry on their industry or business.
One of the areas that causes me some concern is in relation to spreading slurry on land and that has been mentioned. While it is important that due care and attention be paid to the proper timing for the spreading of slurry, nevertheless it is now causing major problems for many farming communities. Whether we like it or not, the present system of farming was one that was highlighted, emphasised and encouraged by the Department of Agriculture and Food and by different Governments. Grants were given for the building of slatted houses or sheds with cubicles and all of this has caused major problems with regard to the spreading of slurry.
In my own county — the Cathaoirleach is aware of this — we have ten group water schemes that are polluted and this is believed to be as a result of the spreading of slurry. Unfortunately, the spreading of slurry is part and parcel of agricultural life; it is part and parcel of the type of farming in rural Ireland today. Due recognition must be taken of that fact of life. Nobody can condone the indiscriminate spreading of slurry or the discharge of slurry into our rivers and lakes, but nevertheless a balance must be held and we should never forget that.
Amendment No. 3 is also welcome, as is amendment No. 4. Those amendments will strengthen the legislation and will strengthen the hands of local authorities to deal with the pollution problem. It is something that all of us should support. By and large, therefore, I welcome the amendments which have been introduced.
I welcome the Minister to the House and congratulate her on her personal input into this Bill. Like Senator Naughten, I welcome the amendments to the Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Bill, 1989. There is no doubt that they will strengthen the legislation. As already stated, this Bill forms a key element in the Government programme to combat water pollution. It is designed to strengthen the controls contained in the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977 and the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959 and generally to update the provisions of the 1977 Act in the light of some ten years' experience of its full operation. I congratulate the Minister for her personal contribution in this case. She has taken a personal interest in this legislation since taking office and I congratulate her on it.
I would like also to welcome the Minister to the House. I have great respect for the Minister; her bona fides in regard to the whole question of the environment cannot be questioned and the efforts which she personally has made to bring in very worthwhile legislation deserve congratulations.
The Water Pollution Bill certainly received a great deal of good publicity. There was a good deal of PR and a great flurry of excitement and we were given the impression that the Government were serious about the whole area of pollution. I believe water pollution is one of the most serious problems. Every Senator here knows the damage that is being done to the image of this country abroad by extensive and very serious ongoing pollution. We have Bord Fáilte endeavouring to promote tourism, particularly concentrating on areas such as fishing and, generally speaking, promoting the image of a clean and green environment. We all believe that is important. The Water Pollution Bill was a great step forward. It introduced substantial improvements to the 1977 Act and there were very considerable increases in the fines.
The only amendment I wish to comment on is amendment No. 2 to section 3 of the Bill. When this Bill went to the Dáil it was considerably watered down. In this section the guts were torn out of the Bill. This has made it a very much weaker measure and it is going to be extremely difficult for local authorities to take effective action against serious polluters. The Minister brought in this amendment to section 3 and I think that is going to make it relatively easy for farmers who are causing pollution to wriggle out of that.
We all know how difficult it is to get prosecutions in the court. The wording of the section was changed from what was in the original Bill, which seemed to me to be very satisfactory. It would be a good defence to prove that someone could not reasonably have foreseen that the act or omission might cause or emit pollution. That seems to have been very forceful and it meant that if some extreme eventuality took place obviously the farmer was not to be held responsible, but that in anything less than that if the action he took was not adequate, he could have been charged and fined. It has now been watered down to stating that the person took all reasonable care. Perhaps if the person made some mild attempt to take care that might be construed in court as being adequate but, in fact, it would be quite obvious that the action taken was not adequate to prevent the pollution occurring.
I greatly regret the wording of the section has been watered down. I believe some local authorities are more determined than others to stamp out pollution but they need every possible support. I believe that section is going to make it virtually impossible and it means that the fines which were introduced will be of no value because if you cannot get a prosecution, it does not matter what the fines are, you will not be able to have the fines imposed. I regret that that section of the Bill was changed.
On behalf of the Progressive Democrats, I welcome the Minister, Deputy Harney, to the House. I am glad to see our party colleague here and may I also say that the amendments to the Bill are greatly welcomed.
I believe the Bill has been very much improved by the amendments. It is a very difficult matter to balance the need for jobs, particularly in the rural areas, with the need to protect the environment. The two things are not contradictory and by protecting our environment we will, in the long term, create jobs and make the countryside the attractive place which we wish it to be and one we can market successfully for tourism.
My fishing career started on Lough Ennel but within a few years that lake was virtually dead because of the actions of a local authority. Then we went to Lough Sheelin to fish and within a few years that take was virtually dead through the actions of intensive farming and through sheer negligence in relation to how slurry was not spread but discharged. The point that needs to be made is that they were two resources of immense national value worth many millions of pounds to the areas concerned. Both those lakes could bring tourists to the midland region. These valuable resources have been there since the Ice Age, renewing themselves from generation to generation, and I cannot understand how this generation, through avarice and greed, can decide that they are expendable. I do not think even the most selfish people in past generations took that view of what they could do to the environment; it is a matter of very deep regret. I am glad to say that in the case of Lough Ennel it appears now to be recovering and, hopefully, Lough Sheelin will go in the same direction. It is appalling to think that a hotelier who invested a lot of money in a premises on the shores of Lough Sheelin should be forced to close his hotel, to sell his boats and move out of the area when that lake was regarded as one of the best fisheries in Europe. It is nothing short of a national scandal what happened to Lough Sheelin.
I recall meeting an intensive pig producer several years ago at a function in that part of the country and he laughingly told me that given five years he would have Lough Sheelin reclaimed; he would have put enough slurry into it to make dry land out of it. That was his attitude and it was appalling. People who have that attitude and people who wilfully pollute the environment should pay a very heavy penalty.
Having said that, I realise that during the seventies when we were in a period of very rapid agricultural expansion, people were encouraged by state agencies and by others to invest in intensive cattle sheds and in rotary milking parlours and to concentrate livestock into large units and that, in itself, of course caused problems. I believe that the people who did that in good faith at a time when possibly we were not quite as environmentally conscious as we now are, need to be assisted in every way to make sure that those facilities are environmentally friendly, so to speak. I believe the State, having been the agency which originally encouraged them to make that investment, has a responsibility to help them make sure that those facilities are operated in a proper and good manner.
In relation to the slurry question, we need to be very careful in relation to the times of the year when slurry is spread. One of the things that has emerged from research abroad in regard to the problem of nitrates in water, which is a very serious problem, is that inorganic fertiliser is an agent but it is not necessarily the primary agent of that type of nitrate pollution, and spreading slurry on to bare land at a time of the year when there is likely to be heavy rainfall, will undoubtedly put nitrates into nearby waterways.
I have just returned from a vist to Bavaria. In 30 areas within Bavaria the nitrate levels in ground water are above the EC guidelines. It has got to the point that it has become very difficult to farm in those areas. We are a long way from that position, and I hope we stay a long way from it, because it will not be in the interests of our farmers if we are to get into that position.
One of the things that has been mentioned is good defence. The amendment is an improvement. There will, unfortunately, be accidents, that is in the nature of things. I do think that, provided people have been shown to take reasonable care, they should be protected in some way. That is not to say that any wilful pollution should not be prosecuted to the ultimate and a very serious view taken of it. I welcome the Minister's statement that an amended good defence makes it clear that it is not sufficient to instal appropriate facilities to prevent water pollution. It will also be necessary to use and maintain these facilities so that pollution does not occur. I do not think we are giving anybody a licence to go out and wilfully pollute waterways.
It has been proven that one of the big polluters are the local authorities, not just farmers and industries, and the local authorties have a role to play to prevent pollution. It was a matter of grave disquiet within fishery circles when it was proposed originally some time ago that the local authorities should be almost self-regulating in respect of monitoring pollution.
The fisheries boards have shown quite conclusively, and very tragically, during the past week their commitment to their job by the unfortunate incident that happened in Cork. The fisheries people are the people on the ground. The fisheries people have done a marvellous job in the part of the country I come from in ensuring that pollution is kept to a minimum, in ensuring that when it does occur the law is brought to bear on it and in keeping our waterways clean. The provision in the Bill to safeguard the powers of the boards to prosecute local authorities and others under the Fisheries Consolidation Act, 1959, is very welcome and I certainly welcome it.
One of the things that was of major concern to farmers, and understandably so, was that if I were living several miles downstream of a source of pollution, under the original proposals I could be prosecuted. I think the person who causes pollution should be the person who is prosecuted, and it should not be up to me to prosecute my neighbour upstream and for him or her to prosecute their neighbour and so on up along the line until we come to the source. Apart from anything else it would lead to problems between neighbours. For that reason alone we should go back to the source of the pollution because that is where the problem lies and where the solution should be found.
I welcome the fact that local authorities can recover costs. I happen to be a trustee of the local angling club which fishes on the River Liffey and on one occasion we actually sued the county council and won. We had to go through the civil process. It should be open to people to recover the costs for that type of activity.
Finally, in relation to ground water pollution, that is probably the most insidious form of pollution. The pollution of a river or water course is quite dramatic but it can take quite a while for the ground water to become polluted. That has very serious consequences for the quality of the drinking water and health within an area. I am glad that — even some time after pollution may have occurred — there is resource to prosecute people who are responsible for ground water pollution and long-term damage.
To come back to the original point, one of our greatest assets is our image as a green, unpolluted, clean country, and that can be made an enormous economic asset, because with increasing leisure and mobility, more and more people will be attracted to this country. The country must be made a clean attractive place for tourists to come to. Litter is another matter but that is an issue for another day. I congratulate the Minister on her initiative and I support the amendments before us.
We all must face up to the fact that one of the greatest problems facing modern civilisation is the disposal of the increasing amounts of waste, be it human, animal or industrial. Basically this Bill is part of the armoury of the State in terms of orderly disposal of waste and the protection of an essential part of the our natural resources, a clean fresh water supply.
It is easy to stand up — indeed I am sure I have fallen prey to it in years gone by — and blame local authorities. Local authorities are operating on behalf of all of us in trying to dispose of the waste in their local authority area with the limited resources successive Governments have provided for them. The local authority is as good as the Government of the day and the Governments that have gone before it. If we have as a nation decided to spend our money, our hard earned Exchequer resources, on other projects and on other capital schemes, we must accept the fact that we have not funded local authorities, we have not given them money, for the capital schemes necessary for the proper treatment of waste generally.
The fisheries protection people have always baulked at the idea of local authorities policing the rivers, or indeed any of this type of environmental legislation, because the finger has very easily been pointed at local authorities and I think it is a cop-out on all our parts. The local authorities are only disposing of all our waste as best they can given the limited moneys they have been provided with over the decades. We have to face up to that. If collectively we wanted to stop the disposal of any more untreated waste of any kind either directly into our harbours and seas or into rivers or lakes, we have to put our money where our mouth is and ensure that the local authority in question can complete the capital schemes, the plans for most of which are sitting on the shelves in the Department gathering dust, because they have not been financed by different Governments over the years. So we now finance the local authority and we stop shouting and pointing the finger of blame at the local authorities. We have to be responsible as we now know the facts and appreciate the situation. Europe is very receptive towards funding for any environmental issues or any schemes that will protect our environment — rivers, waters and lakes in this instance. I would like to say that quite clearly. It is a cop-out. We have all done it but if we stop and think they are only doing the best they can given the resources they have. They are the facts.
Having said that, I would have no fears of Wexford County Council being allowed police the Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Bill, 1989. They have done a marvellous job, much to the ire of many farmers under the 1977 Act. I risk standing corrected by the Minister in saying that Wexford County Council have had the greatest number of prosecutions over the years since the introduction of the 1977 Act or, if we are not at the top, we are very close to it. From an environmental point of view the rivers, lakes and coastline in Wexford are safe in the hands of our county manager, Mr. Noel Dillon, although the IFA in Wexford and the other farming organisations may not be happy with it. Senator Dardis expressed fears about this. Have no fear about Wexford; whatever the farmers view of it may be, from an environmental point of view, they are doing an excellent job. I would like to put that on the record.
In Wexford, I am very proud of our sourcing of water from ground water, and aquifers. If you look at the local authorities around the country, I think we have, if not the greatest percentage of our water sourced from ground water aquifers, we are virtually at the top of the list. We have had extremely forward thinking county engineers, Mr. Gerry Forde and now Mr. Phil Callery, and a large proportion of our water in Wexford is from ground water. The protection and prevention of the pollution of ground water supplies is head of the list when it comes to our environmental policy in Wexford and, again, Mr. Noel Dillon and his team of environmental engineers are to the fore in this area. I must applaud them. We give out from time to time, let us be honest, we all have our toes stood on and sometimes we feel there are excesses when people are doing jobs we do not like. It is the Nimby principle again — in theory, we all agree that this should be done but not in my backyard; do not impinge on me, do not criticise what I am doing. Look at the fellow over the fence or over the ditch. When we look at it, if we are honest in our hearts, these are the public servants doing what we would like to be done, and certainly our children will thank them for what they are doing even though we may squal occasionally if it gets a little too close for comfort or if the finger is pointed in our own direction occasionally. We must recognise when a good job is being done and commend it as such.
I welcome the Minister here this morning and most of the amendments she has here before us. What caught my ear as she was addressing us this morning was her reference to the application of, and I quote, "best practical means concept." I would like to ask the Minister whether the best available technology concept would be too restrictive. There is ongoing debate among environmentalists and those in this area as to whether it is BPM or BAT we go for. I am sure Europe and the European directives are requesting BAT. Would that be too restrictive given our present stage of development and the development of most of our farms and industries round the country. Why can we not go for the ultimate system? I look forward to the Minister's answer because ideally if we wanted the ultimate that is what we would be looking for.
The Minister is a pragmatic person and there are obviously reasons that she opted for BPM rather than BAT but I would like her to develop that because we will be back here in a number of years insisting that only BAT will be the good defence rather than BPM. We will no longer be able to accept: "I did the best I could with what I had available at the time and the advice that was available to me". We must be in a position to put in place the best available technology to prevent pollution be it in terms of this legislation or any other; when we can do that is the question but I am not sure if it would be pragmatic to insist on it now. Ideally that is what I would like because how loose can you make a good defence?
I think it will have to be accepted as a reasonable defence for a farmer to stand up and say that he located his silage pit not quite on the banks of the local stream or river but very near because that was the advice that was being given up to a few short years ago by the ACOT officers, as they were then, but they are now part of Teagasc. With the knowledge that was available to the advisers, to farmers and to the community generally, they thought they were doing what was right. They were grant aided for locating slurry talks and silage pits in places we would now reject, in fact we would say they were downright dangerous and threatening our water courses generally. If they say they built according to the instructions of ACOT as it was at the time, even though it is in a totally unsuitable location now and could be causing pollution, will that be accepted as a good defence? I think if people complied with the rules and regulations of the State of the day it will have to be, even though it could be causing pollution. There is a dilemma here with BPM. Maybe they would get away with it but not under BAT.
It comes back to the overall point I was making. We have to be reasonable, particularly if the State was grant aiding farmers to erect silage pits and slurry tanks etc, and they may have done so inadvertently in the totally wrong place. It will probably have to be accepted as a defence though where you go from there in terms of insisting that the farmer relocates the offending slurry, tank or whatever, I am not sure.
Again the higher farm environment grants throughout the entire country will help but I think some of the conditions attached to the overall development plan are too restrictive in terms of the environmental grant aid that is avilable, and I would ask the Minister, through her colleague, to look again to ensure that the farm environment grants are being used where they are needed. Originally the higher rate of grant aid was only in the disadvantages areas or under the western package scheme, perhaps where they were least needed, because the intensification of farming and the intensification of livestock is on the east coast and the midlands rather than in the west. To generalise, anyone can point to exceptions but that is where the larger grazing areas and the more intense winter fattening systems were originally located. It is spreading now but the first problems arose in the east and south-east, south coast and southern regions. Yet they were the areas, ironically, that did not benefit for the higher grant and we must ensure now that they can get a good rate of grant and that the plan they are tied into is not too restrictive to allow them to avail of the moneys that Europe is so kindly providing for this.
Senator Dardis mentioned slurry spreading and the timing of it. This is a very vexed question because Teagasc have now tied down farmers to certain months of the year for slurry spreading. We have done that sitting at a desk, saying: "Normally speaking, these months would be suitable and those months would not", but with the very mixed weather we have had, both winter and summer, for some seasons farmers have found themselves looking at ideal conditions in which to spread their slurry or empty their effluent tanks into their land while at the same time they are not quite within the month dictated by Dublin or by the local Teagasc office. Again when it comes to a good defence, if they spread outside the months that have been laid down at the desk in Dublin, regardless of how ideal the conditions may have been weather wise and land wise at the time, they could be in trouble. We must look at this again because commonsense must apply to the spreading of slurry above all else. You cannot do it with rules and regulations that are set down in black and white, because it has not worked in the last two years. Farmers have been looking at ideal conditions and questioning whether they should move.
We must ensure that we can safely dispose of as much waste as possible without increasing the burden on the local authorities. Let the farmers do it as long as they can do it safely. Let us have a little flexibility and avail of the weather conditions and land conditions that prevail in any one spring or at any time of the year.
I welcome amendment No. 20 in terms of the local authority financing of the Bill or collection of moneys for costs incurred. I am a little concerned about this whole area of local authorities and financing them. All of us, recent Governments in any case, have increased the burden of legislation and the responsibility of the local authority in terms of carrying out different duties but none of us has actually provided them with the extra finance to do so. I do not think we are doing it yet. We have all sat down and given out about this again and again. We have never made a concerted effort to ensure that the local authorities are funded to carry out the responsibilities we in these Houses charge them to do. The Minister is allowing them to recoup costs here. For the miles and miles of river banks, lakeshores and farms they will have to walk, and the vigilance they will have to put into operating this Bill, this amendment of the 1977 Bill — the number of prosecutions thankfully will be miniscule in most counties where there are law abiding citizens — they will not be in a position to recoup the monitoring costs of trying to find the few who are breaking the law. When you catch and prosecute successfully you will be able to recoup costs, but from our example as a local authority that has operated very vigilantly the legislation in very difficult and financial circumstances, I know the drain properly operating the law can be on local authorities.
We want them to implement this legislation fairly but firmly, but we want them genuinely to be in a position financially to do so. Whether it is too late now to actually look at funding the local authority to take on this extra burden of legislation that we all want to do or whether it should be a very important issue when you talk about local government reform the whole concept of not increasing the burden of legislation on local authorities, such as this legislation, without funding them to do the work we all want them to do, should be stitched in.
Generally I welcome this Bill. The whole point in operating it will be firmness but fairness for all sectors of the community. Farmers generally have gone through a couple of very difficult years and I am afraid, given the complexities of the CAP and the ever threatening outcome of the GATT negotiations, the next few years in terms of primary production do not look good for the majority of our farmers, particularly those who are indebted to the banks. They have a double problem, apart from producing enough from the land to live they have to produce enough to pay the bank manager. It is looking very difficult.
We must do everything we can do to help increase the environmental grants to ensure that farmers are funded to carry out the improvements to their premises that will protect the water supply and the water source in the area for all the citizens. Perhaps we could look again to see if the controls in terms of the conditions under which grants are given are too restrictive and whether the high rate of grants to those farmers in those areas that need them most. When you draw up a scheme at a desk it is very difficult to take into account the practical operation of a scheme on the ground and it is very hard to have the pragmatic effect of it fully understood.
I welcome the Bill generally and I will look with interest at its operation. We can really only tell as the years go by whether it is doing the job the Minister and all of us in this House and in the Dáil want it to do. I do not think any Government, no matter who is in power, should be afraid to come back at any stage and further amend this legislation if it should prove necessary as we learn from the operation of what we are discussing here today.
The disposal of waste is an increasingly critical problem for all authorities, both local and national. It is a direct result of modernisation and industrial policy and because of the flight from the land in rural areas into the bigger towns and cities pressure is being concentrated on certain areas and neither the local authorities nor the national authority have provided the resources to cope quickly enough. That has to be done. We have to recognise that the dilution factor of water as a receptacle for waste is not infinite and we cannot continue as we are doing now.
I would like to warmly welcome the Minister of State to this House. I think we came in here together in 1977 and I am delighted to see her back here with us. I am a firm believer in amendments to legislation. Here we have an extraordinary number of amendments to a Bill. It is an example of how a Minister and his or her advisers will listen if changes have to be made to a Bill but when I see 22 amendments I wonder what kind of a Bill was passed through this House on the first day.
Senator Dardis referred to pollution and what we are doing today. I do not know whether we have had as Senator Doyle said, that extraordinary amount of pollution in the past or whether all of a sudden it is being highlighted to such an extent that we have to deal with it. This legislation is before us again today to do that. We made very powerful addresses during our Presidency of the EC about being a green island and having a Green Presidency. I hope what is being proposed will enable us to take the necessary steps to protect our environment.
Senator Doyle referred to the situation where farmers got advice from ACOT, now Teagasc. What will happen to them with regard to fines? In fairness to them, they took the advice at the time of experts from the Department of Agriculture and they could now find themselves in trouble. Equally, in fairness to advisers in the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture, I am sure that will be corrected.
I do not like strong criticism of local government and local authorities. We pass all sorts of legislation and on the ground we are giving county councils instructions, we are giving them new legislation but we are not giving them money whatsoever to implement the measures. Again, I suppose that will be corrected.
Reference has been made to fisheries and the excellent job they are doing. I do not intend to delay the House. I welcome these amendments. I am a firm believer that if any Bill before this House or the other House needs to be amended that should be done and comments and suggestions of Members of both Houses should be considered by the relevant Minister.
I would like to thank the Senators for their contributions, and indeed for their very complimentary remarks. Senator Honan is indeed correct, we came into this House together 13 years ago. I have gone elsewhere and she has been lucky enough to stay in this House. I am sure she is much happier being here than having to stand before the general electorate every few years. I am told it is much easier in a Seanad election.
I welcome the supportive remarks of all the Senators and their willingness to accept the amendments made in the Dáil. I will not comment in detail on the various contributions made but there are a couple of points I would like to take up. First, I want to say to Senator Doyle that if it is not correct that Wexford are at the top of the list then they are not very far from the top. We do not have the precise statistics but I agree with her that Wexford is an exemplary county as far as environmental protection is concerned. In particular, I would like to join with her in paying tribute to the County Manager, Mr. Noel Dillon, for the management skills he uses to spearhead the effort in County Wexford which is an example indeed to other local authorities. At the Department of the Environment one gets an opportunity to examine very closely the performance of local authorities and, in my experience, it is very much related to the quality of the management at the top. I have to say that the management in Wexford are exemplary in their commitment and in the way Mr. Dillon and his staff set about putting in place the legislation that comes from this House and from the Oireachtas generally.
As Senator Honan said, we have a lot of good legislation. Perhaps we do not always give local authorities the resources to implement some of it but, generally speaking, where there is a commitment, where there is good management, where there is a will, local authorities, by putting the legislation into effect, can ensure that their area is free from pollution, or is as free from pollution as possible, that those who commit serious pollution offences are prosecuted and that that prosecution acts as a deterrent to others.
In relation to Senator Doyle's query about the best available technology as opposed to BPM, this is something into which I have put some thought and I have read a number of pieces of research from other countries. Generally, the concept in Europe is the best available technology not involving excessive costs, the BAT principle. That is somewhat behind the United States where it is the best available technology. The reason why it would not be desirable in Ireland to proceed with the best available technology is quite simply that we would place Irish industry in an unfair position from the competitive point of view. If Irish industry were to put in place the most expensive technology, which generally is the best available technology, it would mean that you would add to their industrial costs and you would place them at a disadvantage in comparison to their European competitors. The general view within the Community is that we should move together on this issue. The best available technology not involving excessive cost is certainly the thinking now and, as far as the Environmental Protection Agency legislation is concerned, that will be the principle adopted there.
Why not here?
Many would argue that BPM is not too far off the best available technology not involving excessive cost in that it takes into account the actual financial circumstances of the venture. It would be argued, and rightly so, that there are certain forms of technology that would, perhaps, totally eliminate any possibility that farming would offer to pollute, but the cost of such technology is such that it would put the farmer out of business if he had to spend £1 million on a piece of technology to prevent his slurry or his silage effluent causing pollution. Obviously, there would not be much point in him staying in business.
We must have a sense of balance. We want agriculture to thrive and succeed. Indeed, it is in the interests of farmers that the environment should be as clean and green as possible. The food industry, which is one of our growth industries worth about £3.5 billion annually, accounts for 40 per cent of our net export earnings, a quarter of all industrial jobs and that industry is very much dependent on a clean, green environment if it is to succeed.
The company that sells Kerrygold butter in Germany, for example, have been able to market very successfully in a declining butter market, the sales of Kerrygold have doubled over the past four years, and are now worth about £50 million per annum. That has been done by selling the product as coming from a clean, green country, Ireland.
There are huge advantages and farmers generally realise that. By and large the vast majority of farmers in my experience want to operate their farming to the best possible standards and in accordance with good agricultural practices, but because farming is not regulated generally by any kind of planning restrictions — traditionally planning permission was not required for many farm buildings and activities — it is necessary now to introduce some controls and regulations to try to minimise and remove the potential agriculture has to pollute.
When one realises that milk, for example, is 400 times more potent a pollutant than raw sewage, or that silage effluent is 200 times more potent than raw sewage, and slurry 80 times more potent than raw sewage, one quickly sees just what the potential of agriculture and agricultural practices have to pollute. That is why the provisions in the Bill relating to the making of by-laws and so on are extremely important.
Senator Doyle wondered if somebody who had taken advice, erected his or her facilities close to the water course and pollution occurred could avail of the good defence provisions? Obviously, at the end of the day, it would be a matter for the courts. The important thing to realise about the good defence provision — Senator Hederman referred to it as well — is that it is not just a question of taking reasonable care and providing the facilities, the person has to maintain the facilities, operate and supervise them and employ practices or methods of operation that were suitable for the purpose of such prevention. Obviously, if it was clear that by virtue of its very location it was not possible for the facility to be operated to such an extent as to prevent pollution, then I do not believe that could be held to be a good defence. At the end of the day it would be a matter for the courts.
In relation to the Teagasc advice — Senator Honan referred to this — the staff at Teagasc have been doing some excellent research into soil use. I visited Johnstown Castle on more than one occasion to see for myself the nature of the work that is going on there. It is possible now, as a result of the research, to give very clear and definite advice to farmers on the best time to spread slurry in various locations, taking into account weather conditions, soil quality and so on. That is very important. What might be appropriate in one area may not be appropriate in another because of particular soil conditions. We must ensure that that slurry is spread at a time and in a way that is suitable to the particular location.
Senator Naughten referred to the pollution that has occurred in County Roscommon to ten group water schemes as a result of agricultural activities. I was not aware of that, and I am distressed to hear that that is the case. There is no justification for that. There is no justification for agriculture as it is practised being allowed to pollute the public water supply that it provided at huge expense by the taxpayer.
Reference was made to the need to have new and improved sewage facilities around the country, and I would agree with Senator Doyle. Over the next decade the Government have committed themselves to provide £1 billion for the provision of new and improved water and sewage treatment facilities. About £300 million will go on improved water supply facilities, about £430 million on the provision of sewage treatment facilities for our coastal towns and about £230 million to provide the remaining sewage treatment facilities that are required to prevent the pollution of our inland water courses.
We have 12,000 kilometres of river, an awful of river. According to the last water quality management study conducted by An Foras Forbartha in 1986, only 2 per cent of that water was regarded as seriously polluted, 74 per cent of it unpolluted and the remainder was in the category known as medium pollution. I am not certain what that means. Our rivers come second to Scotland. We have to improve on that position where possible, and keep our water quality as high and as clean as possible.
It is a major national asset. I have said before in many places that there are parts of the world where they would give their right arm to get some of the fantastic water facilities we have virtually on all our doorsteps. It is our responsibility for this generation and the next generation to appreciate those natural facilities, to use them to the full, to keep them as clean and as pure as possible, not to misuse or mistreat them and so seriously pollute them.
It takes seven years, if it is at all possible, to restore a river or a water course to its pure state if it has been seriously polluted. We all know about the huge efforts and the expense that have gone into trying to restore Lough Sheelin, which was heavily polluted as a result of agricultural activities in that region. I am happy to say that the reports I have indicate that the quality is improving, but it will be a long, slow, painful process, and not without considerable expenditure by the taxpayer, albeit through the local authorities or the State. It is in all our interests, financially as well as from an environmental point of view, to ensure that that kind of activity does not happen again.
Many Senators referred to the difficulties local authorities experience, and I share their concern. As Senators know, the Government have established a cabinet sub-committee to look at local government reform and they have also appointed an expert group of nine people to come forward with recommendations on how best to reform local government to ensure that we have a system that is responsive to the needs of the community, that is as democratic as possible, and that allows the community to participate in local Government, which is extremely important. Although we have many authorities and we have a lot of structures, they are not always as responsive as they could be nor are they always seen to meet the needs of the community as one would wish. It is my view, and that of the Government, that anything that can be devolved to local government should be so devolved and that activities should be supplied at the lowest possible level.
One would have to take account of the efficiency of providing the activities in a particular way but if something can be provided efficiently locally that should be done. It should not be necessary, for example, for the Minister for Energy to give permission to fell trees or for many of the things that come to Departments, particularly the Department of the Environment to be decided nationally in Dublin. It would be much more sensible and efficient if it were done at local level and if local councillors were given real teeth and real muscle, which many of them have lacked for quite some time.
It is not true, as Senator Doyle said, that Europe is receptive to suggestions for giving money for environment projects. I can assure her that is not the case. If anything, it is the opposite. Money is only given if it is for environment projects generally and if it is development related so if money is given towards a sewage treatment facility in one town like Greystones, it will not be given in another area close by because it would be considered unnecessary. Unless the money can be shown to have development potential then unfortunately moneys are not forthcoming for purely environmental projects. That is a disappointment because as a Community, in particular the poorer regions like ours on the periphery, need to get additional resources if we are to provide the kind of modern facilities and infrastructure that is necessary to prevent and minimise the risk of pollution.
I want to thank the Senators again for their contributions. It is the first opportunity I have had to come here in relation to a Bill. I was here before talking about the roads in Cavan-Monaghan. I hope they have improved since then. I look forward to coming back again. This Bill was initiated by the last Government so to pay any great tribute to me for any aspect of the Bill would be wrong, not that politicians do not like getting compliments. To be fair, this Bill was very much initiated by the previous Government, by Minister Flynn, as a result of the awful pollution incidents in 1986 and 1987. The farm surveys that were carried out in those years indicated that about 45 per cent of the farms surveyed posed a medium to high risk threat of pollution and it was felt essential that the Water Pollution Act, 1977 would have to be amended in order to increase the penalties to give additional powers to the local authorities to ensure that polluters pay the full cost of taking actions which are expensive, and that they could be held civilly liable as well to make good the damage or to provide resources in lieu of the damage caused.
It is a good Bill. I hope local authorities will enforce this legislation vigorously in every county in Ireland — after it is signed by the President, which we hope will be very soon. Unfortunately, it has taken too long to go through the Oireachtas but because of the procedures we operate in the Oireachtas things take an unduly long length of time to be processed. This Bill came before the last Seanad and was passed I understand prior to last July and it is only now coming back with the amendments. That is an unfortunately long delay. I think it is a pity because we could have done with having it enacted much sooner.
However, we have the Bill now and I urge local authorities to use it as vigorously and as aggressively as they can. There should be no excuse for local authorities to tell us that they do not have sufficient powers or they do not have the resources. This Bill equips them well in relation to water pollution in particular.
May I ask a question?
I am sorry, Senator but I am afraid you cannot. For the information of the House the Senator has already spoken on this particular Stage and she will be permitted to make some general comments on the Final Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I want to make two comments. It is regrettable that, because of the fact that this Bill had its major debate in this House during the last Seanad, and in the meantime has been in the Dáil, that those of us who have jumped Houses, have not had the opportunity to give it the attention it deserves and debate it at length as we would have liked. That is beyond all our control. However, we welcome the opportunity this morning to make a few comments on it.
May I suggest that the Minister gently squeeze the arm of her senior colleague Minister Michael O'Kennedy because I believe there is money in Europe for what is generally termed environmentally-friendly farm practices so while it might not come under the environment Vote as such, it goes through the Department of Agriculture. Perhaps we could look at extending more schemes that are strictly agricultural but to enhance the environment in terms of the farm practice in use. That is what I had in mind when I said I feel there is money in Europe for environmentally-friendly farm practices, if not specifically for the capital schemes we have been speaking about.
We should also compliment the farmers of Ireland for their investment of over £200 million in the past few years. I know they need to spend the same again to get to the stage we, and Europe, would like their operations to be in as regards protecting our environment. That is a major investment by the farmers of Ireland in difficult times. If progress continues to be made, we will be looking at the green, clean Ireland we all want and our children will thank us for it.
Question put and agreed to.