Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Oct 2004

Vol. 590 No. 4

Water Services Bill 2003 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Sargent

Tá áthas orm deis eile a fháil chun labhairt ar an Water Services Bill 2003. I mentioned earlier that the European Commission has to take much of the credit for the introduction of this legislation and a great deal of other legislation. The drinking water regulations contained in SI 439 of 2000 came into force in January 2004. It behoves the Government to uphold the spirit of such directives and not just their letter.

The lessons of the Waste Management Act 1996 need to be learned. Many of the powers given to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the 1996 Act remain unused. I do not need to remind the Minister, who comes from County Wicklow, that many of this country's waste problems are getting worse. The law is being abused and a considerable amount of criminal activity is taking place. The lessons of the Waste Management Act need to be considered as we consider the Water Services Bill. The degree to which the Bill goes into detail about water reminds me of the degree to which the 1996 Act went into detail about waste. The Bill provides for action plans, licensing and the extent of the provision of clean water needed in this country. It remains to be seen if the Bill will follow the same path as the 1996 Act, but it will be interesting to see if we have learnt the lessons of previous legislation.

I suspect that the EU Commission is far from convinced that Ireland has grasped this nettle. It may not believe that we have turned the corner or will behave in an exemplary manner in our future provision of water services. The Commissioner in charge of environmental issues, Ms Margot Wallström, said at a meeting of the EU petitions committee on 9 October last that she is very unhappy about the lack of implementation of EU water supply recommendations in Kilkenny. The local authority has made many attempts to prevent the matter being raised, but it has been finally brought to the attention of the Commission.

I applaud those involved, such as Councillors Mary White and Malcolm Noonan, for pursuing the matter at the petitions committee with the assistance of my former colleague, Ms Nuala Ahern, when she was an MEP. Their work has ensured that the quality of the water enjoyed by the people of Kilkenny has been addressed. Although all the cases have been accepted by the local authority, we await decisive action on the matter. Such a degree of delay does not show Ireland in a great light at the Commission. I urge the Government and the local authority to hasten progress in that regard, thereby ensuring that the Commission has one less reason to complain about Ireland's water quality record.

Much of the media's attention on water quality problems has focused on this country's 5,500 group water schemes. A far more honest picture of Irish water services is revealed when one considers that the water supplied by many group water schemes is not disinfected. The presence of faecal coliforms can be quite sickening for those who have to drink the water in question. While faecal coliforms are not the only problem, they tend to be used as a key measurement of water quality, particularly in group water schemes.

There are many conflicting and vested interests in this country. I hope water quality will not be compromised, particularly in group water schemes, but it seems that a compromise is reached all too often. Large doses of chlorine or other disinfectants are often used in return for such compromise. It is hoped that such substances will mitigate the damage to some extent, but they ultimately leave a false impression that the water supply is adequate. I do not believe that the highly disinfected water supply which often results is good for public health. The Acting Chairman, Deputy Cowley, could probably give me more information in that regard. The amount of chlorine being used in many water schemes cannot be good for one's health. I have never read a recommendation to drink the water in a swimming pool, but the water supplied by group water schemes is often similar to that found in a swimming pool because it contains a similar amount of chlorine.

I have visited various areas throughout the country in which water quality is an issue. I spoke about Lough Corrib and An Cheathrú Rua i gContae na Gaillimhe during my previous contribution on this legislation. Problems are found in many other places, such as parts of counties Clare and Mayo. Such issues arise along the west coast, in particular, because the water table is quite near the surface. There may have been compromises about the way in which water has been treated in the area.

I mentioned that the drinking water regulations contained in SI 439 of 2000 came into force in January 2004. Whatever about the carrot, the regulations may represent the stick which will be used to ensure that Ireland improves its water quality record. I have read comments made by representatives of the Office of Environmental Enforcement, which is planning to audit the water services provided by all local authorities. They have said they can pursue prosecutions in respect of transgressions made by those operating group water schemes, but they cannot prosecute local authorities. I hope that anomaly will be adequately addressed in this legislation. The local authorities ultimately provide the vast majority of the water used in this country.

A problem in the local authority water supply in north Dublin will affect many people. Many local authorities have to take calculated risks with the water supply. A substantial proportion of the water used in the Fingal area is sourced at Ring Commons, which is also known as Bog Of The Ring. The area's water supply will become more vital in the years to come because the population of the district is growing. The site which has been selected for a vast landfill is just a short distance from the water source. When one takes into account buffer zones, etc., the dump will occupy an area of over 300 acres. It has been suggested that there will not be any problems because the dump will be lined. I have concerns because two significant water courses pass through the area and a considerable aquifer is also found in the locality. Nobody has been able to guarantee me that the material used to line landfills does not leak, although claims have been made in that regard. We have been told that the lining can be 70% or 80% guaranteed, but that is not much good. Such percentages are used when one speaks of the safety of condoms. One does not need to be very intelligent to realise that it is hardly a guarantee.

There is a need to be up front about this. A compromise is being reached regarding water quality when dump sites are selected on the basis that the landfill site will somehow prevent leachate getting into aquifers. That sounds like absolute bravado, but we will ultimately pay dearly for that position. One cannot flush out aquifers. Fundamentally, that is what is being proposed.

When local authorities are taking such major decisions, I ask that they take into account the need to limit demand through demand-side reduction. That means installing dual-flush or low-flush WCs and rain water capture tanks for WC flushing or garden use, low-flow showers, high-efficiency appliances, self-closing faucets, digital wireless water meters on commercial premises and so on which have all been well tried in such places as New York where they took the logical economic decision that it would be cheaper to have demand-side reduction than increased provision. I hope local authorities will be forced to take decisions that will prioritise conservation as well as supply.

Mr. Ó Fearghail

I welcome this opportunity to talk about the Water Services Bill 2003, but first I congratulate Deputy Roche on his appointment as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I have known him for approximately 20 years and know that he has a substantial commitment to and knowledge of local government. I have a feeling he will distinguish himself in this role, as he did recently in the field of European affairs.

This Bill places Victorian legislation within a new and modern legal framework. Up until now, 19th century legislation governed 21st century infrastructure. Clearly, the Bill's purpose is to consolidate and update the existing diverse body of water services legislation in a single modern enactment. I am confident that it will achieve its principle aim, namely, to modernise and manage water supply and distribution systems. This legislation complements reform of the planning code and the local government administrative code which has been ongoing. I congratulate the Minister and his predecessor on their endeavours in this regard.

As I see it, the Bill has three main aims, the first being to consolidate water services law into a single code, giving the Minister direct supervisory powers regarding the delivery of water services. The Bill also introduces a licensing system to regulate the operation of larger group water schemes. Lastly, it places duties of care on users of water services regarding conservation.

The Bill gives the Minister increased powers of inspection and monitoring, something that will foster a more strategic and targeted approach to water services management. The new licensing system will, in due course, apply to the larger group water schemes, estimated at approximately 1,500, catering for 50 persons or more. I share the Minister's hopes that this will bring a new level of professionalism to the sector, in addition to adhering to drinking quality standards as set by the European Union and referred to by Deputy Sargent. Licensing will also lead to an improvement in water quality for rural dwellers and foster the continuing partnership that has been the foundation of recent improvements to water services provision in rural areas.

To that end, I applaud the recent allocation of €1.5 million under the water services investment programme to Castledermot in my constituency of Kildare South. Those funds are but part of a larger €7.4 million investment in the Castledermot sewerage scheme which includes the construction of a secondary treatment plant. The scheme is just one of over 21 water and sewerage schemes in County Kildare with a combined value of over €216 million to be included by the Minister in his Department's recently launched water services investment programme for the period 2004 to 2006.

The Bill establishes new water services authorities which will be based on the county or city council model. They will be responsible for providing water within their own jurisdiction, in addition to supervising water supplies when not supplied directly by the water services authority. This will be done under a licensing process. I warmly welcome the authority's power to directly intervene and insist on the development or delivery of a service when that service encounters operational difficulties. This cannot happen at present. If the users of a scheme encounter problems, as sometimes happens — usually through no fault of the scheme's management — the new authority can take over the running of the scheme temporarily until the problem is rectified. The end result is that the users of the scheme, the members of the public, will be assured of ongoing quality drinking water availability.

Under the Bill's provisions, the new authorities are obliged to develop a strategic six year plan which must be approved by the Minister. This should present no major difficulties for local authority officials who are accustomed to producing five yearly assessments of need for the Department, setting out their areas' water and wastewater requirements. Deputy Cooper-Flynn raised the point about elected members' input into such a plan. I agree with her on that point and suggest to the Minister that the Bill might be improved by inserting a provision that would require the elected members to have an input into the making of the six year strategic plan.

The Bill is consumer-friendly in its focus. Under the legislation, an authority can interrupt the supply of water or wastewater where there is a risk to human health or the environment. There are provisions to allow water services authorities to take over or repair service pipes connecting premises with sewers and water mains, and new obligations on service providers to make alternative supplies available where domestic drinking water supplies are interrupted for more than 24 hours. The Bill will also enable the Minister to make regulations to deal with consumer complaints in due course.

The Bill deals with the management of water from its arrival in a pipe to its eventual discharge as treated wastewater. It does not deal with the production of water — its preparation and treatment before it enters the pipes. While I recognise that it has received some adverse publicity and criticism for not dealing with such issues as water quality and water pollution management, they have been addressed by several new initiatives, including a comprehensive water quality monitoring programme which has been introduced for the 1,500 group water schemes falling within the remit of the drinking water regulations. Samples are currently being collected at consumers' taps on a quarterly basis and I understand the laboratory results will be available from the county councils.

There has been some debate and concern in the House that the Bill will herald the introduction of domestic water charges, to which this Bill will not lead. I welcomed the words of the former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, when he said the Bill was not a Trojan horse for domestic charges, that such charges were specifically prohibited under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1997 and that, furthermore, privatisation of water services would require significant additional legislation to give the necessary powers to an independent regulator and was not on the agenda of this Bill. Neither public private partnerships nor related "design, build and operate" arrangements are precursors to the privatisation of water services. Such a partnership involves only the contracting in of private sector expertise to perform a function on behalf of a contracting authority. Assets remain fully in the ownership of the relevant authority or group services scheme as the case may be. That is the best and only way forward for the development and renewal of water services infrastructure.

The Bill will establish a six year strategic planning and review cycle regarding water services provision. Rural water plans have been drawn up for that purpose and will be incorporated in due course into the new countrywide strategic planning process. It is imperative that we gain maximum value from the €4.4 billion investment in water services infrastructural projects in the next few years under the national development plan. Expenditure must be co-ordinated with national development planning and prioritised in those areas where it is most needed. As I mentioned, the Government will have invested €4.4 billion in the period 2000 to 2006. This major investment in the provision of proper water services is a recognition on the part of the Government of the issue's importance. For that reason, the Bill is particularly timely.

The Bill establishes a modern, legislative code governing functions, standards, obligations and practice in respect of planning, management and delivery of water supplies and the collection and treatment of waste water. It is about ensuring good quality water for these schemes, a sector generally unregulated up to now, and not about sneaking water services charges through the back door, as has been suggested in some quarters. The national federation of group water schemes which represents the sector fully supports the proposals. I welcome the Bill which does not alter the present situation whereby commercial consumers pay for water supply while domestic consumers do not.

I suggested that elected members of councils should have a specific input to the strategic planning process. No less than seven new water authorities will have an interest in abstracting water from the river Liffey, for example. Does the Minister see a need for a regional approach to strategic planning under the Bill? Many speakers have referred to rural water supplies. It seems odd that while emphasising that potable water is a finite and valuable resource, we continue to allow it to be used in agriculture and other rural enterprises when it might be more appropriate to encourage the use of alternative untreated ground supplies. The Minister might comment on the possibility of extending the new well grant to those involved in that business. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Coveney

I congratulate the Minister on his new position. He has moved from responsibilities in Europe to home matters. I have gone in the other direction but I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this legislation. I wish the Minister well with the job ahead.

Having spent four years as a member of Cork County Council I know a reasonable amount about the delivery of water services and some of the complications that can arise. We regularly need debates such as this to consider new ways of thinking about the provision of water.

This Bill sets down a new and updated legislative code dealing with the functions, standards, obligations and practice regarding the planning, management and delivery of water supply, waste water collection and treatment services. On Second Stage we have an opportunity to debate some of the issues surrounding the provision of piped water to homes and businesses, and related issues.

I recognise that the systems for the development of country, city and local area plans have improved somewhat in recent years. Levels of transparency, public consultation in particular and a more positive interaction between public representatives and officials have improved the system. However, the emphasis of area plans still revolves almost entirely around zoning issues to the detriment of other important areas such as the provision and management of water supply. The provision of piped water should play a major part in the practicalities surrounding the decision to zone or re-zone land for a particular purpose. The management of waste water or water run-off is critical and should play more of a part in zoning decisions.

In recent years Ireland has become a milder and arguably wetter place in which to live. Increased rainfall linked with continued extensive building of hectares of new housing estates and concrete roads is resulting in an increased risk of flooding, particularly in low-lying areas. At present we are not adequately anticipating future flooding problems to the extent required if we are to avoid the sort of flooding that has been exacerbated by inadequate drainage or run-off piping capacity. Unfortunately we have had some examples of that in Dublin and Cork. I am not talking of rivers overflowing but of man-made rivers flowing down hillsides into housing estates and causing huge problems. Flooding reports should be part of the planning system for applications with a footprint of more than a certain size, to be decided by the Minister, in areas where significant run-off water may occur, particularly on hillsides.

The next planning issue which needs to be considered is the one which requires developers of land to facilitate future potential development adjacent to their own land. There are many examples of rural villages across the country where housing schemes are being built with sewerage and water provision being planned for, but only for the houses being constructed. A more strategic approach is required by the local authority, not only to link up existing houses in a village which may be expanding, but also to ensure that, for example, water from a well supplied by a developer also takes into account future development within that village. It is ridiculous that one can have 20 or 30 houses in a village, all with their own well and septic tanks, while a housing estate of perhaps 50 or 60 houses is being built beside them without an effort being made to link the houses into the new development.

In some cases local authorities take a very progressive approach to such issues. I would like to see a common standard and mind-set taken in this area by planners, engineers and local authorities. In every county development plan in the country, small towns and villages are being developed as a nucleus for communities which in turn become small towns rather than large villages.

Regarding management of water supply, quality must be the key at all times. We must ensure that the monitoring practices and the standard of both treatment and piping remain high. The debate on the pros and cons of putting fluoride in drinking water rages on. This Bill does not deal specifically with this issue but this Second Stage debate allows me to express some concerns to the new Minister. I do not pretend to be a medical expert but I question the need for mass medication in the fluoride area. We know that medically, fluoride affects different people in different ways. Any medication which has different effects on different people should not be forced on an entire population in a compulsory manner. I am aware of the 2002 fluoridation forum report. However, it has been heavily criticised for concentrating almost exclusively on dental issues and ignoring other potential health complications. With fluoride widely available in toothpaste, mouthwash and other medications, is it still necessary to keep a 30-year-old programme in place mandating the provision of fluoride in all public water supplies in the country?

The Minister needs to reconsider this issue. In every consumer area the trend is about providing choice and information surrounding a product. That is so if we ignore price issues, which for the moment we can do with water. If people buy bottled water, for example, there are strict regulations on labelling, on nutrients and other additives that may have been put into the water. We are currently dealing with that issue in a committee in Europe, with regard to the common marketplace. Yet our public supply of drinking water offers people no choice on whether there are additives and how much of those additives are in place in the water. It also fails to offer real information and, therefore, people do not know what they are drinking.

Are we to continue to insist on a fluoridation policy? Is the policy of using fluoride purely about healthy teeth? If so, are there not other alternatives available? It is valid to ask whether it is necessary to swallow fluoride in order to protect teeth. I do not believe it is necessary to do so. Fluoride is a toxic substance which is considered a poison in the United States. I do not want to over-emphasise this point because I am open to the arguments from those on the other side. However, it is apparent that the arguments against the compulsory addition of fluoride to all water supplies are beginning to stack up. When one considers the position in the rest of Europe, one comes to the conclusion that Ireland is totally out of step and the only country — I stand open to correction but do not believe this will happen — to mandate the addition of fluoride to all public drinking water provided by local authorities.

The other major issue that arises in respect of fluoridation relates to efficiency. I refer here to the utter waste of treated water. An inordinate amount of household water is used for gardening, cleaning cars and filling paddling pools and we are adding fluoride and paying for the privilege with taxpayer's money for this purpose. That is extraordinary. People need to be offered a choice. It is possible, with modern conveniences, for households to apply additives to water if parents, for example, make the decision to do so. I accept that this would not be without complications but the new Minister should have an open mind on the matter.

Other issues related to the monitoring of quality were raised by previous speakers and that of chlorine in water needs to be examined. We need to significantly improve the level of monitoring of water not provided by local authorities. Every farm has its own well and in most instances nobody, including farmers, know what quality of water they and their families are drinking. The Minister must put in place an initiative to ensure there is random testing of water quality. It is unrealistic to expect the water in every well should be examined on a regular basis to monitor its quality. However, we should take some action in this regard because families in rural areas may be poisoning themselves and may not even know it. I say this to make a point. The reality is, however, that we are fortunate in that the vast quantity of water is of excellent quality.

I wish to comment on delivery which overlaps with management. We must insist on obtaining better value for money on the investment we are making in the provision of drinking water. In that context, the first thing we must do is consider the state of piping systems in order to minimise the amount of water being wasted through leaks. I recall this matter being debated by Cork County Council and the estimate provided regarding the amount of water leaking from existing pipes was staggering. When one considers that this is treated water, fit for consumption and being paid for by taxpayers, it is totally unacceptable that it is being allowed to leak into the ground.

The Minister should require every local authority to produce a water report giving an indication of the standard of underground pipes that remain in place. He will discover that there are major differences in the quality of piping used in the various local authority areas. He will also discover that the investment in piping systems also differs because local authorities have pursued different priorities, etc. Requiring such reports would involve additional bureaucracy but it would be a positive exercise and represent money well spent.

My final point relates to how we can approach the issue of water wastage by the public. This is not really an issue in other parts of Europe where people pay for their water as they use it. However, we have made a decision to provide water for households free of charge. There is no water wastage on the part of businesses in Ireland to any great extent. Most businesses are making significant efforts, for purely financial reasons, to reduce their water wastage because they are obliged to pay for the water they use. That is not the case with households.

If we are continue to provide water for households free of charge, we must discover ways to ensure people do not take for granted the provision of water which is a costly business for the State. They must respect the fact that although water may fall from the sky free of charge, the provision of water into households comes at a cost. We must build in the mindset of the public respect for the fact that water cannot be used, freely and endlessly, without there being some repercussions. Perhaps the Minister could ask an expert group to give consideration to this matter and make recommendations in terms of improving the water efficiency of households, from both a PR and technical point of view. If we were to put in place a grant aid system to make households more water-friendly, it would be money well spent. We would actually save money, in the medium term not to mention the long term, by doing so.

The other alternative which is not politically palatable is to begin charging for the amount of water people use. Even if we were to give them a free quota of water to use each year and charge them for water used in excess of this, it would not be politically palatable. We need to be realistic. We must, therefore, take a strong and proactive approach towards informing people about the cost of providing water for their households. They do not have a clue as regards how expensive is that process. As a result, they leave their hoses on in the summer in order to promote the growth of their grass, leave taps running and fill two or three baths in one night for their children when they could simply fill one. We need to consider ways to change this mindset. It will be a slow process but I hope the Minister will initiate it.

Mr. Crowe

I wish to share time with Deputy Connolly.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Cowley)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Crowe

I also extend my congratulations to the new Minister. I have no doubt that he will bring new energy and a new approach to his portfolio.

I wish to raise a number of issues of serious concern which arise in respect of the Water Services Bill which gives rise to legitimate fears that the Government is intent on introducing water charges. The provision in the Bill in respect of the installation of domestic water meters is possibly the first shot in a battle to impose another inequitable stealth tax. Having been involved in the campaign against the introduction of water charges throughout Dublin in the 1990s, any attempt to introduce such charges will be met with large scale opposition. The Minister may well issue denials that this is not his intention. However, that will do little to reassure a public which has grown increasingly sceptical of the Government's broken promises.

Part V has — correctly — raised eyebrows as it provides powers of access for installation, reading and maintenance of meters. The Minister must explain the reason meters are necessary if it is not his intention to introduce water charges. The Bill also makes provision for the charging of rent in respect of such a meter, which raises questions regarding the Minister's claims that water charges will not be introduced. Why does the Bill include an explicit reference to the "principle of recovery of costs of water services as provided for in Article 9 of the EU Water Framework Directive"?

I am also concerned that section 56(12) allows a water service authority to restrict or cut off a water supply without accruing liability. This, too, may be connected with plans for the introduction of water charges.

Sinn Féin oppose water charges which are a regressive stealth tax. Given that we oppose direct charges for domestic waste, we cannot support proposals for metering domestic water supplies. Every household has a right to an adequate supply of safe, clean water as a basic entitlement and this principle should be enshrined in the legislation. Access to safe, clean water should not be based on a person's ability to pay. Water is an essential service which must remain under State control and be paid for through the general taxation system.

Sinn Féin is fundamentally opposed to the privatisation of water services. The disastrous record of such privatisation in other jurisdictions should deter even this Government from embarking on such a course. Many provisions in the Bill suggest the Government is attempting to lay the groundwork for the future privatisation of water services. For example, the legislation makes provision for any functions it confers on water services authorities to be performed by the Minister or other prescribed person. I contend that, under the terms of the Bill, the Minister has the power to prescribe powers to privatised water service companies.

Water conservation can be used as an excuse by those who favour the introduction of domestic water charges. Is the real intention to use this excuse to create another revenue raising mechanism? If conservation were the intention, we would see much more action directed at addressing the problem of leakage and enabling householders to conserve water through changes in toilet cisterns, showers and the water efficiency of washing machines, dishwashers, etc. In this regard, I welcome reports that the Minister plans to introduce measures to ensure all new homes are fitted with a dual flush toilet system. Nevertheless, much more can be done.

Another problem which must be tackled as a matter of urgency is persistent leakage which is responsible for the loss of between 30% and 45% of all water. It is an imperative that a properly funded, comprehensive leakage control strategy be put in place. Large quantities of water are being treated only to leak into the ground because of antiquated piping. Treating water for public consumption is expensive and losing clean, treated water through leakage is a waste of a valuable natural resource. Addressing leakages is an area of saving that must be given priority and the introduction of an investment strategy to replace these leaking pipes is vital.

Sinn Féin has many concerns regarding the Bill and the dubious agenda we believe may underlie many of its provisions. We intend to raise these concerns in greater detail on Committee Stage.

Mr. Connolly

I congratulate the Minister and add to the garland of good wishes he has received to date. I wish him well on his appointment. I have no doubt it was his performance at European Union level during our Presidency which caught the Taoiseach's attention.

This Bill, a 100 page volume, is welcome as it updates legislation on the delivery of water supply. Ensuring optimum water quality is a priority arising from our EU obligations. Many water service systems remain in disrepair and contribute to the low standard of water quality. My concerns regarding the one-off housing policy in rural areas, with its knock-on effect on water supply, remain. A uniform approach nationwide would be a recipe for removing the constant litany of section 4 motions in county councils. Emphasis should be placed on small, rural residential communities in which services could be provided by the local authority.

Fluoridation of water supplies was introduced in the 1960s as a definitive way to ensure clean, uncontaminated water nationwide. Regrettably, fluoride was added to water as a form of mass medication to ensure children's teeth benefited from an adequate supply of fluoride. Fluoride was often found not to have the major beneficial effect claimed, however. If we were to attempt to mass medicate by adding antibiotics to the water supply, it would cause uproar. Given that other countries have abandoned the idea of adding fluoride to water supplies, we should reconsider our approach. Although other chemicals are added to the water supply, this is done for presentation, colour, taste and other beneficial reasons.

Since the 1960s, many doubts have been raised about the fluoridation process and questions are being asked as to whether the cure is worse than the disease. Many questions have been raised as to whether the amount of fluoride added to water is excessive. In the United Kingdom the use of chemicals specified for water fluoridation is illegal under the Poisons Act 1972. One chemical, in particular, fluorosilicic acid, is a waste product from the fertiliser industry. When added to drinking water this chemical, which is more toxic than lead and slightly less toxic than arsenic, gives a fluoride concentration of 40 milligrams per litre, which is, as indicated by various clinical trials, approximately 100 times the respective EU limits for lead and arsenic.

The Department of Health and Children spends €44 million per annum on 360 fluoridation plants. This means that scarce public resources are being washed down the kitchen sink when they could go a long way to restoring some semblance of order and normality to our hospital services, about which the House heard a great deal earlier. Perhaps €44 million would not go far in the health sector but it would be of considerable assistance in my constituency.

Professionals in the areas of health, academia, science and consumer affairs on the forum on fluoridation pointed to the glaring example of wasteful expenditure on fluoridation. The forum posed the question as to why the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act 1960 specified both a lower and upper limit of fluoride to be added to drinking water. Its research showed that there were no significant beneficial effects at a fluoride concentration level below 0.8 milligrammes per litre. Nevertheless, the forum contradicted itself in its first recommendation which states: "In the light of the best available scientific evidence, the Fluoridation of Water Supplies Regulations, 1965 should be amended to redefine the optimal level of fluoride in drinking water from the present level (0.8 to 1.0 ppm) to between 0.6 and 0.8 ppm, with a target value of 0.7 ppm." As I noted, the forum also indicated, however, that there were no significant beneficial effects at a fluoride concentration below 0.8 milligrammes per litre. If this is the case, why put fluoride in water in the first instance? The forum, in other words, recommended a revised level of fluoridation which it previously recognised as having no significant effect.

According to the forum, which was established by a former Minister for Health, this amounts to a waste of money of the order of €44 million. I arrived at this figure using figures from the United Kingdom where fluoridation plants are being closed down. Each closure represents a saving of £46,000 per annum, which equates to approximately €70,000 per plant per annum here. In Ireland there are 360 such plants. The mathematics are simple. It works out at €13 million. Then add the capital cost to the economy of this no beneficial effects scheme.

The forum's report also recommends that old plants be brought up to standard since they do not currently comply with regulations on accuracy of dosing. Often it is difficult to regulate the dosage people are putting into the water; sometimes it is not as scientific as we would like it to be. Let us assume that 20% of our plants do not comply. In the upgrading of a plant in Berwick, Northumberland, in the United Kingdom, capital costs were €430,000. Simple mathematics demonstrate that the bill to upgrade this no beneficial effects tampering with drinking water will be approximately €31 million. After factoring in the massive costs incurred in the various studies and monitoring called for by the forum, the sanity of all this must be questioned.

The forum concluded that people were getting too much fluoride. The dose needs to be reduced by one third and children should be educated to use less toothpaste on their toothbrushes. The population is being forced to ingest an unknown quantity of a sub-optimal dose of a toxic waste product, the beneficial effects of which are unknown and unproven. Children are being told to use less fluoridated toothpaste when, in fact, they should be told to stop drinking fluoridated water.

The health and safety considerations for staff working at fluoridation plants in the United Kingdom were also called into question. Some plants were closed and the treatments suspended because of concerns for the safety of staff working in them. In the case of the plants closed, the €46,000 running costs were diverted into health promotion initiatives in the immediate area. Something similar should be done here if we ever decide to close plants. On a national scale, such a saving would transform the crisis ridden health service as the Minister would have an extra €44 million to spend.

It was emphatically stressed by the former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that there was no intention to impose water charges. Some of the reassurances have a hollow ring and are reminiscent of what happened with waste charges in previous times. Some local authorities have privatised their waste collection services but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the provision of water services could also be assigned to public companies, as happened in the United Kingdom.

The metering of premises is also dealt with in the Bill. Just as the PAYE sector bears the brunt of income taxation, people whose premises are metered are most vulnerable to price increases. EU directives have mandated the metering system and should ensure a fairer system is applied to everyone, with farmers paying only for the water they use. Other EU directives on the quality of drinking water and wastewater treatment have been largely responsible for reshaping public attitudes to these and associated environmental issues.

Water services have been and should always remain a priority with successive Governments. Considerable investment in water schemes in Ireland has been made through the EU Cohesion Fund and the landscape has been transformed in terms of the provision of quality water supplies and the raising of wastewater standards. While I have raised fluoridation and other issues, it should be acknowledged that the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, has opened a number of DBO systems in Cavan and Monaghan, projects of which we are proud. There have been moves such as the grouping of systems in the right direction which should be welcomed. There have also been positive developments.

A six year strategic plan for the upgrading, operation and management of water services infrastructure is an eminently sensible arrangement and should ensure value for money. There were problems with water quality in some group water schemes in the past year. The voluntary group schemes have made and continue to make a vital contribution to the country's water services by providing approximately 10% of the water supply. I trust the new licensing system will be a force for good in the continuing development of the group water sector.

With regard to the thorny issue of pollutants entering waterways, the provision of sufficient wastewater treatment plants is an urgent requirement to prevent raw sewage causing pollution. Human health is a major priority and it is vital that consumers receive the earliest possible warnings, preferably through local radio and the print media. Sources of contamination or pollution should be identified as early as possible in the interests of public health and the public should be notified and have its fears allayed.

The requirement for a map of works is also welcome. However, what happens if there is no map of works? Will it be possible to map out the water supply system from county to county, identifying the locations of the various mains pipes? The vast majority of engineers who worked on these schemes are long dead and this requirement could prove a veritable nightmare for the various local authorities. Account must also be taken of the water leaking from the system. In many instances, infrastructure was installed in the 1930s and 1940s and cannot be matched by the pipes manufactured now. There is probably no indicator of the volume of water being lost in the system. Some have estimated it to be as high as 40%.

The Bill's inspection provisions will help to ensure improved standards of water management. Perhaps consideration should be given to a replacement of the countrywide network of pipes, although there is probably no estimate available of the possible cost.

I welcome the Bill and trust it will make a major contribution to the continued improvement of our water services.

Mr. O’Dowd

Both the Minister and I are in new jobs. I will ensure the legislation that comes before the House is properly challenged and frankly and fairly debated. We will listen to all the arguments before we make up our minds on the issues involved.

Everybody can agree on some things. One is that water is the most important thing in our lives because without it we can only live for a short period. The quality of life, the quality of Ireland's water and the quality of our environment are predicated on how we deal with our environment and water resources. This Bill contains many good provisions but also many provisions that concern me. Unless we use the good things in the Bill to manage and conserve our water supply, use it wisely and well and plan for the future, there will be no long-term future for the country. I welcome the good things in the Bill.

I welcome the good investment programme run by the Department. A phenomenal amount of money is being spent in this area. When one looks at the individual schemes in the counties, towns and cities, one sees the huge investment. That is welcome. It is good, positive and constructive. That is a fact. However, there are issues with planning, water supply and sewerage that I must discuss. One is the national spatial strategy, on which I sought a debate today as we have never had one. The strategy is critical for the future of the country because through it we are planning the development of our cities and towns. Specific areas have been identified for growth. It is that issue and the planning issues involved in developing our towns which I wish to address. This involves the limits placed on us by the water supply and whether it can be brought to those areas and, second, our wastewater treatment facilities and whether they have the capacity or the effectiveness to deal with the development proposed, not only in the strategy but also by local authorities when they draw up their development plans for which the guidelines need to be looked at again.

I have read what was said in the debates on this Bill both in the Seanad and this Chamber. I will use my county to give examples of what is good and bad practice. When we were drawing up the development plan for County Louth, we looked specifically at rezoning. We looked at land throughout the county and particularly around the village of Dunleer, a matter of great controversy for many.

The county council rezoned vast tracts of land in addition to the land recommended for the curtailage of the development plan for the village of Dunleer. The people of Dunleer and the future of County Louth were significantly and adversely affected by the amount of land rezoned. The sewage capacity of the village, which is approximately 4,000 people equivalents, has already been reached in the current the development plan. There is no capacity to deal with the flood water which will run off from the houses and industries, if they are built. Given that situation, farmers have told me that flood water run-off is causing significant problems on their farms. The decision was wrong for County Louth and Dunleer.

Political pressure is shaping development plans while issues of water supply and sewerage do not seem to enter the arguments. A further point is that the capacity of Dunleer to grow has been stymied because it cannot grow more than has been planned for. There will be no place for those from the area who want to live there unless a new sewage treatment plant is built at a cost of millions of euro. The wise men in County Louth decided that Dunleer, which has a population of approximately 2,000, will grow to 4,500 over the next five to seven years. The town of Ardee will be smaller than the new town of Dunleer, which is crazy. Worst of all, the capacity of the local river, the White River, which supplies water for Dunleer, is low, especially in summer. There is concern, given that waste water from the sewage treatment plant will enter the river, that the future water supply of all of mid-Louth could, in theory, be contaminated.

This sort of water issue must be addressed in conjunction with the positive measures contained in the Bill. We need to connect the spatial strategy and planning, even at micro or village level, with what is being discussed. Unless this is done, we will continue to experience problems and mistakes. There will be a demand for a new sewage capacity and for significant investment in a particular town, while other towns with less capacity could meet demand but will not get the growth. I hope the Minister will address this important issue.

Much has been said on the fluoridation of water. An eminent health board official, who happened to be a professional dentist before he entered the wonderful world of public administration, told me that fluoridation made a significant difference. He told me the cohort of children growing to adulthood with more than half of their teeth lost disappeared in a very short period. Whatever the faults in the arguments, there is one positive issue, namely, that fluoridation protects young children and ensures they retain their teeth into adult life. This is important and has made a significant difference to the well being and health of the young, which must be stressed.

I agree with much of what Deputy Coveney said on conservation of supply. Ordinary households do not have a proper policy for conservation of supply. Many speakers have referred to the dual flush system for toilets, which makes sense. The Minister will remember the barrel for rain water outside village and town houses. Women, unfortunately, had to do the washing with that water but the rain water barrel is long gone from Irish life despite it being a valuable source of what is called grey water. I hope the Minister will address this issue. It goes back to Deputy Coveney's point about conserving the good things we have. Let us conserve the rain water coming down from heaven and let us use it to improve our society.

Members of the Green Party, in particular, raised questions about the type of washing powder we use. Members will know that many additives in washing powder are not good for the environment and this must be addressed.

On Friday last, when I accessed part of the Minister's website, I noted he had issued a statement on the nitrates directive, on which I understand Mr. Denis Brosnan has produced an important and useful report.

Mr. Roche

I compliment the Deputy on getting to the website.

Mr. O’Dowd

I was lucky to gain access to it. It is a very poor website and needs to be radically upgraded.

Mr. Roche

It is a very good website.

Mr. O’Dowd

It is very poor. If the Minister uses it, he will find it impossible to get into the news media section.

Mr. Roche

Is the Deputy referring to the departmental website? I thought he was talking about a private website.

Mr. O’Dowd

The Minister is the Minister and the buck stops with him. When I am in his Department, the buck will stop with me. I suggest he does something about the website. However, to be constructive, I welcome the report, on which Deputy Hayes will contribute later in the debate. The question of water supply and its affect on agriculture are important issues raised in the report.

I recently had a conversation about the Bill in a relaxed atmosphere with local government officials. It was their opinion that water charges would be reintroduced, whether in this Bill or another Bill. They laughed when I referred to the repeated denials of the Minister and his predecessor in regard to the Bill.

I understand the Bill reserves to the county manager alone specific reserve functions in the making of a scheme. This is important because there are two parties to local government, namely, the officials, led by the manager, and, on the other side, the public representatives. The Bill excludes public representatives from making this decision, which would be a reserve function of the county manager. This would be a retrograde step and is the focus of concern. From our experience of public life and local government, Members know that difficult decisions must sometimes be made. However, with regard to the reserve functions of the manager, councillors can argue for or against but the manager has the power.

There is only one way to grow local democracy and a fair, open, honest and transparent system, and this is by giving power to councillors to deal with these issues. The Minister is creating a new power which he is not giving to councillors. This is fundamentally undemocratic and lends credence to the belief on all sides of the House, and outside it, that the Minister is trying to bring back water charges, which will be absolutely resisted around the country.

Mr. Roche

The Deputy is pushing an open door.

Mr. O’Dowd

The Minister should leave it open. He should give councillors the power and do away with the reserve function for managers.

While the Minister is in office, there will be a vibrant team opposite him in the House. We want democracy not dictatorship in local government. We want councillors to have the power to make decisions. If they get it wrong, as many will, they will be kicked out. However, a manager cannot be kicked out and a reserve function cannot be changed. The Minister does not have that power.

Debate adjourned.