Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister and thank the Labour Party for tabling this broad ranging motion which provides us with an opportunity to debate the important matters brought to our focus. As I stated, the motion is broad and encompasses a wide range of issues including water quality, waste management, the environment and legacy sites. While I will not be able to cover all of those issues in eight minutes I will comment as best I can on some of them.

There is a commitment to climate change from all parties. It is regrettable to hear the Minister say the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security is adversarial. I am a member of that committee and I have not witnessed any of what the Minister claimed in this House is happening. The committee has submitted many constructive proposals and recommendations. For example, the electric vehicles report was initiated by that committee and was utilised to a large degree by Government in framing its policy on electric vehicles. The committee also submitted proposals for a foreshore licensing Bill, the intention of which was to remove many of the barriers to renewable energies and to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. There has been much constructive debate at that committee. I cannot say whether the Minister has misunderstood or is misrepresenting the position. I believe he is being adversarial in introducing that red herring into the debate this evening. The Minister's remarks are regrettable. The Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security has worked hard to produce constructive cross party proposals.

Only today the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security discussed the national renewable energy action plan which must be implemented by the end of this month. Officials from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources who attended the committee had not consulted with the committee despite it having strong views in this area. Only two weeks ago it was brought to the committee's attention that targets were being set, serious targets which would have a huge impact on the manner in which Government policy is implemented. These targets should at the very least have been discussed at an early stage with the committee. Late consultation with stakeholders is not the way to go about addressing issues.

Many serious issues have been raised in regard to the setting of targets. The impression was given to the committee that many individual agencies, Departments and Ministers are, with the best of intentions, doing their own thing in terms of reaching those targets. Individual local authorities are drawing up their wind strategies for zoning in areas where it would be appropriate to have renewable energy wind turbines. There is no joined up thinking between local authorities and Departments. Another example of this is that of foreshore licences. We do not know if the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is responsible for these licences. This is impacting on water quality. For example, seven villages in Waterford county where I live made a combined application to the Department for the installation of new sewerage schemes. Two or three of the villages concerned require a foreshore licence and because they have not yet been issued with them the application in respect of the seven villages has been held up for almost seven years. There is no co-ordination or fluency in regard to the issuing of foreshore licences. This is an issue the Minister could address and on which there has been little action. The Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security has tried to address this matter through the constructive mechanism of the foreshore licensing Bill. I hope the Minister will take these points on board.

Many of the pilot projects under way, including the smart metering programme, renewable generation programme and micro generation programme, programmes I credit the Government on introducing - I believe in giving credit where it is due - are, unfortunately, closed to new applicants. If we are realistic in regard to how we are to reach our targets those programmes must be rolled out and expanded to enable more people to access them. We must learn from the problems encountered during operation of the pilot programmes to ensure these programmes are implemented in an easier manner.

I am passionate about the issue of hazardous sites and legacy landfills. I acknowledge that the Minister was not in office when many of these were developed. The same is true of many people on this side of the House. In the past, industries were established without thought in regard to their environmental implications. This is how things were done in those days not alone in Ireland but across the world. We have our fair share of these in Ireland. There are also many of them in the United KIngdom but they appear to be dealing with them a little better than we do. Haulbowline and Silvermines are examples in this regard. I come from Portlaw, County Waterford in which the former cotton mill was located. Portlaw is a planned industrial town developed around all of the supports of an urban town, with employment, health and education services all developed in a short time. In the 1930s, Irish Tanners was, unfortunately - perhaps fortunately at the time - established by the State. Irish Tanners operated on the same site for more than 50 years during which time hazardous and toxic material was dumped on a mill pond consisting of three acres which is directly adjacent to the River Clodagh. I grew up in Portlaw.

I was elected a councillor in 1999. Every agency, Department, Minister and local authority has since then consistently turned a blind eye when I raised the environmental issues in regard to that site. Perhaps this is because Portlaw is but a small town in County Waterford. This site is 50 meters from the River Clodagh in which fresh water mussels live. This species is under threat of extinction yet the local authority is throwing its hands up and saying it does not have the resources to address this issue. The EPA is aware of the problem but is doing nothing about it. I have consistently raised this matter since 1999. I have raised this matter in the Seanad but again nobody has done anything about it.

I do not blame the Minister for this problem. I am speaking to him now as a member of Government. The Minister stated he is addressing the issue of legacy sites. I am telling him that this is not happening and that in many cases the blind eye is being turned. As required under an EU directive issued in 2008 a great deal of money has been spent on remediating the many local authority landfills which were unlined and untreated. These are not the only landfills. There are many industrial sites around the country that need to be registered. I suggest that the Minister's Department require, as per European law, all local authorities to register these sites properly and to survey them and come up with estimated costs for remediation. This would be a good day's work and would result in real action on the ground.

On waste generation, I understand the Minister is in conflict with Dublin City Council in regard to the construction of an incinerator or the introduction of anaerobic digestive systems. Under current regional waste management plans, each region is doing its own thing. We do not have a national co-ordinating management plan that will direct and inform those plans, another issue which the Minister should examine. As I stated, I give credit where it is due. Much work has been done on recycling in respect of which we have exceeded our targets. Society is to be complimented on the manner in which it bought into Government and local authority initiatives in this regard. This has helped to remove the waste streams from our environment and in addressing the issue of dumping.

On water quality and supply, much work remains to be done in rural Ireland. I acknowledge that new water and waste management systems have been installed. However, questions have arisen with regard to the sustainability of those systems, many of which were carried out under public-private partnerships. The hard questions in regard to how these are to be sustained will need to be asked. Many businesses are now being charged for water out and water in, thus causing us new challenges. However, those systems are needed. We also need more of them. I believe that many local authorities continue to pollute our water courses. Raw sewage continues to pollute the streams and rivers of small towns and villages, which is unacceptable.

I acknowledge the Minister is trying to address the issue of septic tanks. I suggest that he engage with those rural dwellers in a positive sense and that, rather than come the heavy hand with these people he offer an incentive which would encourage them to upgrade their septic tanks. We cannot target the little man if we are not targeting the big men, the people who polluted our environment. I respectfully suggest the Minister introduce grants or incentives to encourage people to upgrade their septic tank systems. I am sure he would be delighted by the uptake in this regard.

There is much I could say in regard to water quality. My colleague, Senator Ó Brolcháin will be aware of the cryptosporidiosis outbreak in Galway - an outbreak also occurred in Waterford - and that it took weeks and months to obtain the results of the tests which had to be sent to Scotland and England for analysis. Why can we not have a proper water testing system in our national laboratory to test for cryptosporidiosis and keep on top of the problem if it arises? These are some of my observations. This debate will go on and on, because improvements can be made and will be made all the time.