Noel Dempsey
Question:14 Mr. Dempsey asked the Minister for the Environment the decisions, if any, the Government made further to his meeting with the Federation of Group Water Schemes. [5208/97]
Other Questions. - Group Water Schemes.
Better Local Government — A Programme for Change lays down a comprehensive agenda for change, including a new buoyant funding system for local authorities and the assimilation of local authority charges for domestic water and sewerage services into general taxation. Consequently, all households, urban and rural, connected to a public main will no longer have to pay for a domestic water supply, and rural households served by group water schemes supplied from local authority mains will also benefit substantially.
I recognise that not all group water schemes can avail of a public water supply and a substantial number of households are served by group water schemes which have their own private supplies. I am concerned that the quality of water in many of these schemes is not up to standard, a point raised earlier. The recent Environmental Protection Agency report on drinking water quality indicates that 43 per cent of private group supplies suffer some degree of coliform contamination.
Having regard to the increased vulnerability of water sources to organic pollution and considering that the bulk of the group schemes were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s, I considered it essential that greater resources should be provided to enable these schemes to connect to a good quality public supply or, where this is not feasible, to put in place proper filtration and disinfection facilities. Accordingly, I announced last month a new multi-annual programme, with funding of £5 million in 1997, to establish a new programme of works aimed at remedying deficiencies in substandard schemes, and allowing local authorities to take over private schemes where members so wish, thus eliminating domestic water charges for the householders concerned. In cases where schemes opt to remain fully private, technical and grant assistance would continue to be available for upgrading works.
I also announced last month that I was proceeding with arrangements for the devolution from my Department to the local authorities of full responsibility for the administration of group scheme grant applications for new schemes, or upgrading existing ones. This gives further practical effect to the policy on local government reform and is in keeping with the recommendations of the Devolution Commission, and with the policies outlined by previous Ministers for the Environment. Under the devolved arrangements, I envisage local authorities will draw up integrated strategic plans which will form the basis of a planned approach to the organisation and management of water supplies in rural areas, with public and private group supplies playing complementary roles. Such plans would have the quality issue as a first priority but would also deal with otherwise defective supplies and efficiency, conservation and environmental aspects.
Within this framework, the issue of the running costs of group schemes, and charges to members for domestic supplies, requires further consideration. Because of the range and complexity of the issues involved, I met representatives of the National Federation of Group Water Schemes, the Irish Farmers Association and Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association last week. I also received written submissions from trustees and members of individual group schemes and my Department is in consultation with local authority management. Yesterday I met representatives of group water schemes in County Monaghan. I am now considering all of the points raised with a view to developing proposals for a planned approach to the development and operation of rural water supplies and I will report to Government in due course.
A summary of the Minister's reply is that the Government has not made a decision further to his meeting with the Federation of Group Water Schemes. Given that he spoke about financing local government and the mess he made of this issue, why, when he considered abolishing water charges for urban dwellers, did he not carefully consider all aspects of the question, including rural dwellers on group water schemes? As late as a week ago, I asked the Minister if he had an idea of the number of group water schemes privately and publicly owned. He was only able to give me a list of group water schemes in each county and was unable to say which were privately or publicly owned. That is a measure of the Minister's and the Government's preparation in deciding to abolish water charges and fund local government.
Will private group water schemes be allowed to continue as such? Will the Minister provide them with the necessary finance to ensure their continuation because indications given to the Federation of Group Water Schemes last week were that he was in favour of "institutionalising" private water schemes? Will he state clearly that he will not forcibly take over private group water schemes?
I am always amused by the Deputy's late understanding of issues. On 19 December when the most comprehensive package of local government reform for 30 years was announced——
The Minister should not get carried away by his public relations gurus.
The cheque writer has arrived. Did Deputy Harney give the Deputy a slap?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Let us hear the reply.
The Progressive Democrats said: "We do not know what it will cost, but whatever it is, we will pay it". That is wonderful economics from the Progressive Democrats.
The Minister is a sorry sight.
The Deputy's comment was that I have made a mess of it.
That is as obvious as daylight.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Let us hear the reply.
The Deputy does not want to hear it because it is too painful for him. The Deputy appeared on national television on 19 December and welcomed the proposals. He did not comment on group water schemes that week or the following week. He did not comment on them until somebody pointed out that it might involve political contention and then he discovered them.
It was two weeks before the Minister did so.
From the beginning I have included consideration of all group water supplies.
We are not in Government with the Minister any longer.
From the beginning I have considered the implications of the abolition of domestic water and sewerage charges. I am interested in the Deputies' comments because some of their Fianna Fáil colleagues want to return to charging for water. If that is what they want, they should state it unambiguously. They cannot speak from both sides of their mouths at the same time.
The Minister answers the questions.
I will answer all the Deputy's questions but he must take it as well as give it.
As long as we get the opportunity to make political statements, we will do so.
I thought out the matter. Charges for public water use in town and rural areas were abolished from 1 January. People are grateful for that fact and they are equally happy whether they live in my rural county of Wexford or in Dublin city. All group water schemes will receive a public supply. Approximately 85,000 households will have that domestic component lifted from them and they are happy about that. There are anomalies because the issue is complex. It involves much more than just signing a cheque, as some people wish to do. I am concerned about the quality of water in rural areas——
Hear, hear.
——and particularly about the Environmental Protection Agency report which states that 43 per cent of private schemes have some form of coliform contamination. A solution must be found to this problem.
The Minister should start with the public schemes.
As the Deputy is aware, the level of coliform contamination in the public schemes is less than 9 per cent.
The Minister should ask the Minister for Finance about the Roundstone scheme and others.
The Roundstone matter will be sorted out this year. If the Deputy does a check list, he will note the improvements coming on stream. I made it explicitly clear to the federation that any scheme which wished to remain private could do so. There should be no ambiguity about this matter because I have made my position clear. Those who want to be taken over by the local authority should be in a position to do so. Schemes in many counties have been taken over by local authorities because it guarantees a pure and good supply and many others are being absorbed by the regional schemes which are coming on stream. However, I have no difficulty with good and efficient schemes which wish to remain private. We will continue to grant aid and support such schemes.
I welcome the Minister's explicit statement and I presume that will remain his policy.
It has been my policy from the beginning.
The Minister made his all encompassing statement in relation to local government financing in December. He made the initial announcement on 21 December but on 19 January he had to make another statement to reassure everybody——
On 21 January.
——because he had not thought of providing free water to people using local authority sourced group water schemes, which would mean a substantial reduction in their payments. When this matter was highlighted by this side, the Minister had to back-pedal again and he ran into the current problem. If that is a well thought out, all encompassing strategy for local government financing, I would not like to see a hastily put together plan.
The Minister spoke at length about the free water people receive. Will the Minister confirm that £40 million has been collected from motorists for free water and that a further 3 per cent and 6 per cent, of which the Minister for Finance does not appear to be aware, will be used in the coming years to pay for free water? In his current deliberations of the anomalies he has created, has he considered the position of people who have their own wells, which provide individual supplies, but who must pay a motor taxation increase for water in urban areas?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The scope of the question has broadened.
The Minister introduced it.
It can be put down to the fact that it is an election year. The Deputy is aware motor taxation has not increased by 1p this year and was not increased by 1p last year.
It will increase next year.
The Deputy does not need to worry about next year.
What about the price of diesel and petrol?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Let us hear the reply. The Minister without interruption.
The Deputies do not want to hear it because they want to create as much confusion as possible.
The Minister should tell the truth.
I will put all the facts on the table so that even Deputy Dempsey can understand them. Motor taxation was not increased this year.
Will it increase next year?
It was not increased this year.
The Deputy did not say it was.
I did not say it was increased this year and I resent the Minister's implication. Petrol and diesel were mentioned. If the Minister listened to the question, he might be able to answer it.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The Minister, without interruption.
Motor taxation will not increase this year. I wanted a level of local discretion available to local authorities under the new buoyant system and they can increase it by 3 per cent next year and 3 per cent the following year if they choose.
Six per cent.
It is 3 per cent in each year.
The figure of 6 per cent is in the book.
It is difficult for the Deputy to listen.
We know how to read English.
The Deputy does not know how to do so because he is totally wrong.
I will not allow the Minister to mislead the House. He should look at the book he produced himself.
The Minister should resign because he is making such a mess of it.
It is 6 per cent over two years. It is appalling that the Deputy has not read any of it and understands none of it. It is 3 per cent next year and 3 per cent——
The Minister will not insult me. I read the document and I understand it and I will not allow him to state otherwise.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy should read it again.
It is 3 per cent next year if local authorities want it and 3 per cent the following year, giving a total of 6 per cent over two years. That is explicit in the book.
After that, 20 per cent.
Deputy O'Hanlon confirmed that for the Deputy.
I said 20 per cent after that.
After that, no increase is allowable. This is agreed unless the base rate for motor taxation is increased by Government.
Who will pay for the water?
Does the Deputy understand? It will be enshrined in law which I will introduce in the House. I wish to repeat the appeal I have made at seminars and over the last two years; I thought I had some form of understanding with the Deputies.
Not this way.
We should not destroy the chance for local government reform because an election is pending. Local government should be allowed to thrive regardless of who is in Government after the election.
The Minister's package does not allow that in the financial area. It is a nonsense and the Minister knows it.
It is a comprehensive package of real reform which has been welcomed. The Deputy should put forward his own proposals and not knock holes in a good system for base political reasons.
How can the Minister justify increases in motor taxation to pay for the loss of revenue from service charges? How can he justify a position where those charges continue to bear on group schemes which will not benefit from the abolition of service charges? Most of the individuals involved have cars because people in rural areas cannot manage without them but they must pay increased motor taxation. Does the Minister understand the double cost which will be involved in the future for people who receive their water supply from group schemes? The Minister calls his decision major reform but previous attempts by the Labour Party to reform local government created greater chaos. It is unfortunate the Minister did not give the matter much more thought before making his decision. It was poorly thought out and the decision cuts across two basic principles, equity and subsidiarity.
The entire package of local government reform measures encompasses much more than the funding mechanism, it covers in a comprehensive way the relationship between councillors and management and the general public, quality service initiatives and so on. The funding mechanism proposed is fair. If one is paying £200 per year in car tax, a 3 per cent increase next year will amount to £6. Is the Deputy suggesting that this is an unbearable burden? For the first time there will be a ring-fenced buoyant source of funding collected locally to allow local government get on with the job that we all want it to do. Its merits should be recognised and, because of the year that is in it, people should not attempt to shoot down what is a good scheme. The local authorities, ultimately, will not thank any of us for it.
It is being introduced for political reasons, because of the scare in Dublin West.
Let us try to work together to make it work.
It is not a good scheme.
It will result in chaos.
I have said at each of the five gatherings attended by representatives of every council — the final one was held yesterday in Cavan-Monaghan — that the package is not written in stone and that every idea will not work but it is a good effort.
Will any of the ideas work?
One blunder after another.
All bar the finances.
Let us work together to achieve its objectives. If people attempt to shoot it down because of the year that is in it, somebody will have to pick up the pieces. I want to reform local government to which I am committed.
We have heard this before from the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, when he introduced service charges.
We are still paying for the substandard housing built when the Deputy was in the Custom House.
The Tánaiste told us that service charges were the solution to the problem in the 1980s.
The Deputy has no right to talk about local government as his record was abysmal. Houses were built without fireplaces and chimneys. We are spending tens of millions of pounds to rectify the damage.
Central heating was provided for the first time in local authority housing.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Some Deputies seem to be determined to prevent their colleagues from contributing.
I appeal to all sides of the House to give the scheme a chance. People should not try to feign dissent for political reasons.
The Minister indicated that capital funding will be provided to upgrade existing group water schemes. As he is aware, there are ongoing annual maintenance costs in respect of all group schemes. How does he envisage these being met in respect of private group schemes? What is the position in respect of individuals who source their supplies from private wells?
No decisions have been made. Last Thursday I met the representatives of the farmer organisations and the Federation of Group Water Schemes and listened to their views. I will accept further submissions. Ultimately, I will have to return to Government with my suggestions and proposals.
When does the Minister intend to introduce legislation to deal with this matter? In my own city of Cork approximately 10 per cent of cars, leased by businesses, are registered in Dublin. A further problem is that there is a common registration system administered by Cork County Council. Information on the number of cars registered in Cork city is not compiled in a separate database. When will these matters be resolved? Cork Corporation does not know how much money it will have next year from motor registration tax sources. Will the equalisation scheme be treated in the same way as the rate support grant scheme? When rates were abolished there was a statutory obligation to allocate a rate support grant but the formula used was removed by the leader of the Minister's party. Will the same happen in the case of the equalisation scheme?
Will the Deputy read the document?
Yes.
A number of the questions that she asked are answered in the document. It will not matter where a commercial fleet is registered as all the proceeds will be placed in the equalisation fund.
We have yet to see it.
It is contained in the document.
I am talking about the legislation.
If the Deputy had read the document carefully, she would know what is envisaged. The legislation is being prepared and will be introduced this session.
We know what the Minister's party did to the rate support grant.
On the rate support grant, the Deputy is correct that the Minister for the Environment could decide on the allocations on a whim but the equalisation fund is different. For the first time there will be a ring-fenced buoyant source of revenue for the exclusive use of local government, something which has been sought for a generation.
On what is the figure of £15 million, to be allocated in the current year to group water schemes, based? What does the Minister expect this will do for them? What training facilities are available for those working on these schemes?
As the Minister is aware, the legislation has not been introduced. He made a mistake, however, when he said that it was a matter for the Minister for the Environment to decide how much each local authority would receive by way of rate support grant. When domestic rates were abolished Sylvester Barrett included a formula in the legislation to ensure each local authority would receive a sum equal to the amount collected by way of domestic rates. It was the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, who removed that statutory requirement. We cannot trust the Labour Party when dealing with local government matters. There is chaos in each local authority because of the way the funding mechanism was destroyed by the Tánaiste when Minister for the Environment. We have a ridiculous proposal which was poorly thought out. It changes week by week.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
This is not the time for making a speech.
The Government is making a major mistake and a major blunder and we are asked to believe it is something wonderful.
As the Minister is aware, a number of group water schemes which have been approved by the Department are being held up because the circular letter and instructions have not been issued. Will the Minister agree to issue approval under the old system as quickly as possible? How does he propose to deal with those schemes which source their supplies from private wells?
Private wells, poison chalice.
Capital expenditure on group water schemes amounted to £3.4 million in 1994, £6.6 million in 1996 and will amount to £11 million this year. This includes the additional £5 million allocated to upgrade schemes. I have asked the local authorities to compile an inventory of each scheme throughout the country so that we will know exactly what needs to be done to make a supply of good water available for the first time to many schemes. We will be as successful in tackling this matter as we were in solving the pothole problem to which we did not pay lipservice, as Deputy O'Hanlon will be aware. Since I became Minister we increased the allocation from £20 million to £173 million this year.
The problem is not resolved.
Regarding Deputy Molloy's question, the Bill is not before us but will be introduced in this session. Unlike the rates support grant, which was a matter of Government discretion year on year, for the first time this fund will be a dedicated one. As motor tax rises, as is predicted, the revenue accruing from it will fund local government in a much more comprehensive way than in the past.
The Deputy's party removed the statutory provision on that in 1983.
Deputy Dempsey's question is pertinent. I indicated to local authorities that schemes approved in advance of the devolving of the process to local authorities will proceed in the normal way. If there is confusion about that, I will reiterate it in a circular to local authorities.
What about the private wells?
The Deputy can throw coins into them.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.