I also congratulate Deputy Batt O'Keeffe on his elevation to the second bench as a Minister of State. It is a much deserved promotion and will leave a vacancy in thechairmanship of the Joint Committee on Health and Children that some of the disappointed backbenchers may look forward to filling, shortly. It is always nice to see the level of co-operation that exists between the main party in Government and Deputy Cooper-Flynn in the sharing of time with her former colleagues. I certainly agree with that Deputy's final remarks about this being a managerial rather than a reserved function. It is the third or fourth example of the erosion of local authority powers in the time of this Government. I am one of the long-serving members of a local authority who very much opposed the abolition of the dual mandate and I have suffered from that along with other Members of this House. It was a retrograde step because there will soon be nobody in this House to defend the rights of local authority members. Their functions are constantly being eroded by this Government and specifically in this case by, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
The Bill is concerned only with the provision of water and does not deal directly with water quality or related environmental issues. It is impossible to separate those two matters, however, because if there is not clean water, it cannot be put into pipes for public consumption. The explanatory memorandum states:
The Bill concerns itself only with the actual provision of water services. It does not seek directly to take on board wider environmental issues surrounding water resources (pollution control; water quality in its broadest sense; river basin management, etc. although it complements the relevant legislative codes in this regard. To appreciate the overall thrust of the Bill therefore, it is helpful to visualise its application as pertaining to management of "water in the pipe", i.e., from the time, following abstraction, that it first enters a supply pipe to the point of its subsequent discharge again to the environment as treated waste water.
It is no good having a Bill that will deal with water in the pipe because one cannot separate matters that affect the quality of the water either by discharge or entry into the pipes. I regret that the Bill does not address that.
The central aims of the Bill are to facilitate a more coherent expression of the law as it relates to water services by means of a single enactment which would represent a comprehensive legal framework; develop a modern and progressive approach in the sustainable management of water services; strengthen administrative arrangements for planning the delivery of water services at local and national level; and introduce a new licensing system and regulatory framework for group water services schemes, to assist in their development, and to address water quality problems in this sector.
Again, water quality problems may not be addressed without looking at the quality of the water before it enters the pipes. Will the Minister of State say whether the necessary finance will be made available to local authorities now that a water service authority must be set up. Will the necessary extra finance be made available to the local authorities to provide the necessary staff to deal with these matters? This is going to be a major problem. As it states in one section of the Bill, if a water supply is deemed to be inadequate or polluted, the water services authority must supply an alternative source within 24 hours to the group scheme, village or townland affected. There are cases in my constituency of Galway West, for example, in the summer time in Carraroe, where the water may not be drunk. Does this mean that the residents there will be guaranteed an adequate supply of drinking water within 24 hours if the supply has been deemed unsuitable for their consumption? That is an important area I would like the Minister of State to address.
The former Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, told the Seanad:
There is nothing in the Water Services Bill which is intended to launch water services policy on a course towards privatisation. The Bill is drafted with a view to retaining the status quo and to providing the necessary supports to foster the development of current arrangements into a top class service. Privatisation of water services would require significant additional legislation to give the necessary powers to an independent regulator and is not on the agenda of this Bill.
That is all very well. Despite what the previous Minister told the Seanad, I am concerned that the Bill will pave the way for the privatisation of Ireland's water supply. I am particularly concerned about that because I find it hard to accept, to take at face value what the previous Minister said. I dealt with him on the Committee Stage of the Bill dealing with electronic voting and we saw where that ended up. It is difficult to trust this Government on the evidence because it has broken almost every promise it made in the previous general election. It is difficult to accept further promises it might make between now and the next general election. It would probably not be many, but I fear if the Government parties get back to power after the next general election, they may start down that road.
The Bill deals with metering of premises. Most people whose premises are metered bear the brunt of increases on an annual and local basis. There is obviously no respite in the Bill for these people. As a nation we can be critical of EU directives, but those affecting the environment, particularly in regard to the quality of drinking water and waste water treatment, have transformed the way we think about these issues. They will serve the country well by ensuring greater care, management and accountability on environment issues in future.
Water services authorities, as they are termed, seem to be packaged in such a way that they can easily be cut off from the umbrella of the local authority. It is this definition of functions and powers that leads me to question whether the ultimate goal of the Government is the privatisation of the water supply and its management.
The Environmental Protection Agency published a series of reports on water services this year. Among its key findings were that drinking water quality is improving, and that the compliance rate for faecal coliforms, which is the most important indicator of drinking water quality, is improving in both public water supplies and group water schemes. However, the overall quality of drinking water supplied by group water schemes remains unsatisfactory. That is from the report of the EPA. If we are serious about the good quality of water in pipes as envisaged in this Bill, then we should phase out the chemical treatment of water and concentrate our efforts on protecting the source of the water. That is the key requirement, rather than chemically treating water, but that can only be achieved by a reduction of the nutrient loading of our lakes and waterways. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, our lakes meet the standards as laid down, but that does not correspond with what I see and what has been shown to me.
Last week, a public meeting was held in Oughterard about the deteriorating quality of the Corrib water system. In my own constituency, for example, the Owenriff river is fed from the lakes around Maam Cross. It flows through Oughterard and into the Corrib outside Oughterard. The Owenriff river is one of the most important rivers in Ireland because of the presence of pearl mussels, which are protected under the habitats directive. The Owenriff river is one of the few remaining rivers with a live population of pearl mussels but all is not well on the river. Recently, there was a presence of algae on the river and this year a survey found that all juvenile mussels, that is, up to three or four years, had been wiped out. That is serious because the Owenriff river flows directly into the Corrib and the pollution of that river will have an effect on the quality of water in the Corrib lake. The Corrib lake is one of the most important sources of clean water supply to all of Galway city and a large part of Galway county, stretching from Oughterard to Killanin, Moycullen, Annaghdown, Headford, Claregalway, Oranmore, Clarinbridge and the surrounding areas. The water supply for all those areas, including Galway city which has a population of 70,000, comes from the Corrib and if the Corrib becomes polluted, the water supply to the city and almost half the county would be wiped out. We should protect the source of our drinking water rather than continuously using chemicals to treat water entering our pipes.
I quote from a report of a paper presented by Mr. John Hanily, principal environmental health officer of the Western Health Board, to a conference in Dublin some years ago. It states:
Alarming levels of chlorine found in the public water supply in the Western Health Board region have prompted calls for a national survey of drinking water and more transparency at local authority level.
A recent pilot survey of public water supplies in the Western Health Board region revealed that almost 70 per cent of the samples had unsatisfactory levels of chlorine. Some supplies had a 100 per cent unsatisfactory level of chlorine, and others had the same level of chlorine as a swimming pool.
The survey, which was carried out over a nine month period last year, comprised over 600 samples taken from 21 water supplies.
Speaking at a conference in Dublin, John Hanily, Principal Environmental Health Officer with the WHB, said that these levels may reflect a national problem arising from excess use of chlorine as a disinfectant and he has called for a nationwide survey of drinking water.
Chlorine is used by all local authorities to disinfect drinking water and is widely recognised as the most effective way to do so, according to Mr. Hanily. Health boards were responsible for the monitoring of chlorine levels, but as of last year this responsibility was passed back to local authorities. [I presume it will now be passed on to the Water Services Authority and not even members of local authorities will have an opportunity of questioning the matter.]
Mr. Hanily said that he had concerns about the implications of such self-regulation and said that it is time local authorities came out of the closet and provided the public with regular and comprehensive information on the quality and content of our drinking water.
That is very strong talk. We will now hand this responsibility over to the Water Services Authority, thereby preventing the local authority and the elected members raising the matter or having an input into it. The report further states:
There are no guidelines in relation to the addition of chlorine to the water supply except the stipulation that chlorine in drinking water must be monitored with regard to public health requirements.
Mr. Hanily said that concerns were being expressed in the scientific community over the levels of chlorine compounds being used to disinfect drinking water. Excessive chlorification is the cause of the presence of chlorination by-products in the water supply. It is these by-products which potentially cause adverse health effects.
I understand the Government has set up a western river basement project to investigate the water sources in the western region. I understand ESB International are the appointed consultants and that the project will cost €8 million. My information also is that the project will not be completed until 2015. That is much too long a delay and perhaps too late to save our lakes, waterways and drinking water. Action needs to be taken immediately in many cases. Surveys or investigative projects do not solve problems. Only action will solve problems. I will give an example of that.
In 1995, following the serious flooding in south Galway, the Department initiated an investigation which cost more than £1 million. Despite the publication of a detailed report, not one spade will be put in the ground in south Galway because the flood relief programme for the area has been abandoned. I was proud to have been involved in an unofficial small relief drainage scheme following the 1995 flooding, which alleviated flooding in nine houses, a nursing home and a school, at a cost of £125,000. The same scheme was estimated by the Department to cost £1.5 million, yet there has not been flooding in that area since. That is an example of action, not words, and that is what I advocate the Minister should take.
According to the Exchequer return figures published on Monday, the Minister of State's Department, or at least the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government — I do not know what portfolio the Minister of State has but I believe it is that Department — underspent its budget by €650 million. How much clean water could be provided for that amount of money? Would it not provide a sewerage scheme in the many small towns and villages where water sources are polluted or inadequate? I speak of villages like Carraroe, where the water supply collapsed during the summer because of sewerage problems, and the Galway Gaeltacht where thousands of children from all areas of the country take Irish classes. Other villages like Roundstone, Clifden, Leenane, Cornamona and Clonbur — I could continue naming villages in my own constituency — have either no sewage treatment facilities or very inadequate ones.
Will the Minister of State inform the House when replying whether he will spend that €650 million on providing sewerage schemes in those small towns and villages, which would alleviate their water contamination problems, rather than saving that money, which I believe is a deliberate policy? I do not blame the Minister of State for that; he was not in Government at the time. I blame his party for saving €650 million in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Several hundred million euro was saved in other areas as well, making a total of more than €1 billion in savings. That money is being saved this year and the following year to provide a slush fund and the appearance of a great deal of money being spent in the run-up to the general election. That is a false economy. That money should be released now and used to provide sewerage schemes in the small villages and towns in my constituency and elsewhere, and that work could be carried out much more economically now. Instead the Government is saving it for a few years so that it will have a splash of money before the general election. That is politics at its worst. People might ask us why we say that but our job in Opposition is to expose what is going on at that level. It is a scandal to which I will return at every opportunity because so much money has been put aside this year and not spent on the essential schemes. It is being saved for a slush fund for the general election to try to re-elect this staggering Government.
Approximately 70% of urban waste water receives secondary treatment and nearly two thirds of secondary waste water treatment plants fail to comply with one or more of the standards during the reporting period. Corrective action programmes are needed for treatment plants consistently in breach of standards. Procedures for the use of sewage sludge in agriculture need to be consistently implemented. The decline in the number of river stations of the highest biological water quality is a serious cause of concern. One third of all river stations do not comply with the targets. Meeting targets set by the phosphorus regulation will continue to be a major challenge. Local authorities are putting in place a range of measures to tackle water quality problems and it will take years before the success of those measures is determined.
The EPA noted that the quantity deficiency in group water schemes mainly resides with private schemes, those responsible for the abstraction and distribution of drinking water. Those schemes provide water for approximately 140,000 houses. The Minister is aware that raw sewage is still entering rivers and seas, which is a disgrace. In his response to this debate he should set out when it is envisaged that we will have sufficient water treatment plants to prevent raw sewage entering the waterways. That is the key to what the Minister will do, particularly given the €650 million underspent this year in providing small sewerage schemes to protect the waterways in the towns and villages I have mentioned. It is necessary also to protect drinking water for the population which depends on a clean water supply and expects clean drinking water to come from its taps rather than having to buy bottled water as many do.