Vol. 682 No. 1
6 Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the steps he will take in response to the Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Provision and Quality of Drinking Water in Ireland: A report for the years 2007 to 2008, which indicates that almost a third of public water supplies are of poor quality; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18104/09]
26 Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the steps he has taken to improve the drinking water infrastructure that is not fit for purpose; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18102/09]
43 Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the steps he will take in response to the Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Provision and Quality of Drinking Water in Ireland: A Report for the Years 2007 to 2008, which, according to the EPA, indicates Ireland needs sustained investment in infrastructure to deliver clean drinking water, this being vital to sustain health and well-being here and for sustainable development of the economy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18103/09]
120 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the extent to which he proposes or will provide adequate domestic drinking water storage facilities here in the future with particular reference to the need to meet the requirements of the population; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18419/09]
121 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the extent to which he proposes to provide adequate good quality domestic drinking water on an ongoing basis here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18420/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 26, 43, 120 and 121 together.
As I indicated in reply to Question No. 1, my Department co-ordinates and finances a major programme of investment in improved drinking water supply infrastructure, active leakage control, telemetry and rehabilitation of water mains, on which some €1.6 billion has been invested by the Government in the period since 2000. Substantial additional funding is being provided this year from the total Exchequer provision of €500 million for the water services investment programme. This level of investment reflects the priority assigned by Government to meeting EU standards for drinking water and providing critical water supply infrastructure, which has seen additional drinking water treatment capacity and additional drinking water storage capacity equivalent to the needs of a population of 855,000 and 1.5 million, respectively, provided since 2000.
A rigorous supervisory framework has also been put in place to ensure good quality drinking water is provided and that effective mechanisms are available to deal quickly and effectively with problems where they arise. My Department has also been working closely with water services authorities, who are generally responsible for the management of public drinking water supplies, and the EPA to ensure that the management structures for the supply of drinking water are of the highest standard. The recently published report, The Quality of Drinking Water in Ireland — A Report for the Years 2007 and 2008, shows that overall the quality of our drinking water is good and further progress has been made in improving drinking water quality in recent years. The report shows that monitoring of water supplies increased by 8.1% over 2006 and details the agency's enforcement activities, including the first prosecution of a water services authority under the drinking water regulations of 2007.
The report highlights, however, the need for further improvements if high standards of drinking water quality are to be maintained. It identified a number of public water supplies that require detailed profiling from catchment to consumer to determine whether the supply needs to be replaced or upgraded, or where operational practices need to be improved to ensure that the water supplied to the general public is clean and wholesome. The fact that a water supply is on this list does not necessarily mean that the water produced by the supply is unsafe to drink.
My Department and the EPA developed an action programme in response to a similar remedial action list identified in 2008. In the case of some 60% of the supplies, the safety and security of supply could be addressed through abandonment of existing sources, better operational procedures or relatively small-scale improvements to the treatment processes. I made available a fund of €16 million in 2008 to deal with these small-scale improvements. The balance of the supplies require new or updated infrastructure and these are included in the water services investment programme. My Department will be reviewing the additions to the list in 2009 with the EPA and relevant water services authorities to identify the appropriate solutions in these cases.
I am satisfied that the combination of the rigorous supervisory framework which I have put in place and the resources being devoted to the water services infrastructure will ensure continuous improvement in the quality of our water supply.
The main progress which has been made with drinking water is that it is now being monitored very substantially by the EPA and we have had reports for the past couple of years. The progress made on the issue has been very slow. There were 339 supplies on the risk list last year with 83 being removed and 62 added. Almost a third of our water supplies are still considered risky by the EPA, meaning there is a problem with the water and something needs to be done by the local authority to take it off the list. It is important to make that point.
With regard to the money that the Minister spoke of investing, is €500 million enough and does he expect that sum to be spent? Will he guarantee that all the money will be spent? In view of the embargo on council staff recruitment, will councils have enough staff to spend the money and will they have the capacity to carry out necessary works?
When the EPA launched the report, it stated there will need to be a corresponding upskilling of those charged with the operation and management of drinking water treatment plants. I presume this referred to both public and private facilities. Do the councils have enough staff with the necessary skills and will the Minister guarantee that by the end of this year, the €500 million will not be left languishing in local authority accounts or not drawn down by local authorities at all?
At a recent conference of architects the Minister stated that domestic water charges were inevitable. I put a question to the Minister last month on whether Ireland had opted out of implementing domestic water charges under European Union law and his reply was that we had. The Minister did not indicate in the reply that he intended to change that and he pointed out how the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1997 removed the authority of water authorities to implement water charges for domestic users. He also indicated there was no requirement for the Government to take steps to opt out of article 9(1) of the water framework directive with regard to the requirement to charge domestic users for water.
Where does the Minister stand on the issue? There is no point in indicating this is the responsibility of the Commission on Taxation and at the same time linking the matter with the quality of water. Water charges are a revenue-raising measure and it is not the way to get funds for water infrastructure. We have an income taxation system which should be operated fairly.
Water is equivalent to a food product in that a third of food products would not be on shelves if they were risky. Unfortunately, this is the case with water. Water is not dispensable; a person can stop eating food for a certain time — people have gone on hunger strike — but we cannot stop drinking water as it is next to the air we breathe in terms of its vital importance to our health and well-being. This is even more relevant for children and elderly people.
If there is a threat of charging for water, there is the possibility that some people who should drink water would restrict their usage. What is the Minister's position on water charges and what does he believe is the right way to proceed?
The previous reply I gave to the Deputy on the matter is correct. The Deputy put other questions, initially regarding the amount of money involved. The €500 million for 2009 is a substantial amount. Although there has been reference to a reduction of €60 million on the €560 million envisaged in the 2009 Estimates, it should be stated very clearly that the provision represents an increase of 1% on last year's outturn, even taking into account a very difficult economic position. This reflects the Government's ongoing commitment to the water services sector.
This year's provision can be compared to previous years. In 2008 and 2007 the outturn was €496 million, in 2006 it was €465 million and in 2005 it was €419 million. There has been substantial progress and I am very proud, as a Green Party Minister, that we have managed to target that investment on a critical area.
Some €100 million of the €500 million has already been allocated to the water services authorities, mainly for works on group schemes, leaving €400 million for the continued financing of major schemes under the water services investment programme. Investment under the programme will support over 4,000 jobs in the construction sector this year, which is essential, and many additional jobs in the manufacturing and operating areas and maintaining new infrastructure posts.
Although the 2009 provision has been reduced, this must be set against the background of much more competitive tendering. We are getting very good value for money, with up to 20% of a reduction in costs.
The last issue referred to by the Deputy was the public service embargo and the need to upskill staff. There have been some erroneous reports that we are stopping certain recruitment. There was a recent report that lifeguards could no longer be employed but that is untrue. We will ensure that the people required for this very important work will be put in place. The commitment is real and can be seen in the amount of money we will invest.
I remind the House that a maximum of one minute is allowed for each supplementary question and the same for a ministerial reply. We must stick to that or we will run out of time.
To return to water charges, I understand the Minister stated to a group of architects or people of a related profession that water charges are inevitable. Why is it inevitable that we will have water charges for household water users?
I gave an interview after my speech to engineers. I was talking about rainwater harvesting and the recycling of water, which is essential, and the conservation of water.
My comments were made in the context of climate change. The EPA report to which I referred indicates that as a result of climate change there will be higher precipitation in certain areas of the country and drought in others. I clearly indicated that we must ensure we treat water as a valuable resource. Treated water costs money and people in this country are already paying for water. As already stated, there has been no change with regard to the latter. The commercial sector and, quite controversially, schools are paying for water. Some schools have done tremendous work in this area and have reduced their costs to a substantial degree by investing in rainwater harvesting. This underlines the value of the green schools initiative. The investment in this regard was made in the aftermath of direct assistance from my Department. A school can save up to 28,000 litres of water by making the kind of investment to which I refer. We must impress on people the message that water is a resource which must be reserved.
Is the Minister stating that he intends to introduce water charges for domestic users? He should answer yes or no.
I said exactly the opposite. As I informed the Deputy, the reply I gave to her on a previous occasion stands. The position remains the same.
Very shortly——
Is the Deputy happy?
No, I am not.
He is never happy.
I am extremely happy, particularly in view of the fact that I hold a seat in Cork South Central.
I was asking Deputy Tuffy if she is happy.
I am not really happy.
The Minister addressed the Institution of Engineers and flagged as an issue the introduction of domestic water charges. He can make as many statements as he wants at conferences or in schools. However, he is in the House now and he should indicate whether he is in favour of introducing domestic water charges.
The Deputy is being deliberately disingenuous.
All I am asking is that the Minister answer the question.
How unequivocal must I be? All the statements I have made in respect of that matter in the House are completely accurate and they stand. I made reference at the conference in question to the Commission on Taxation, which is considering all of these issues. As matters stand, there is no plan to introduce domestic water rates.
7 Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the steps he will take to ensure wastewater treatment infrastructure here is fit for purpose and that local authorities have the necessary funds to upgrade the infrastructure within the timeframe outlined in European Union law; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18105/09]
The capital provision for water services infrastructure in 2009 is €500 million, which represents an increase of 1% on last year's outturn and reflects the Government's ongoing commitment to the sector. In the period since 2000, the Exchequer has spent €2.5 billion on the provision of wastewater infrastructure, with 144 major schemes completed. These schemes include the construction of very large wastewater treatment plants in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Wexford, Drogheda and Dundalk. New wastewater treatment facilities were also provided in many other smaller urban areas. The increase in wastewater treatment capacity over the same period was equivalent to the needs of a population of 3.6 million.
Compliance with the general requirements of the EU urban wastewater treatment directive in respect of secondary wastewater treatment has also increased significantly over the past decade, rising from a compliance level of 25% in 2000 to some 92% at present. All of the remaining schemes are included in the water services investment programme 2007-09.
The wastewater schemes included in the programme are based primarily on regular assessments of needs, undertaken by water services authorities at my Department's request. Water services authorities will be asked to undertake updated assessments of needs in the middle of this year and these will be used as a key input to a review of the water services investment programme. Priority objectives for the new programme will include the need to deliver infrastructure required to expand and improve our wastewater treatment capacity in order to ensure the highest emission standards from our municipal wastewater treatment plants, to anticipate future economic and social development needs and to maintain progress towards compliance with the requirements of the urban wastewater treatment directive.
I recently visited Dublin City Council's wastewater treatment plant, on which a great deal of money was spent. Does the allocation of €500 million also relate to wastewater treatment? In the context of current capacity to deal with wastewater treatment, how many further plants will it be necessary to construct? When will these plants be delivered?
Section 49 of the Planning and Development Act contains a provision which allows local authorities to require developers to build infrastructure. As far as I am aware, local authorities have used this provision only in respect of transport infrastructure. Has the Minister considered asking them to use it to require those responsible for major developments to either build some of the required infrastructure or to fund its construction? The latter would have to be done specifically and not by means of a general levy.
The Deputy inquired with regard to the capital provision of €500 million. In the context of the water services investment programme, some 150 schemes are currently in progress. Of these, 90 are wastewater schemes. It is expected that 40 schemes will be completed this year. Of these, 30 are wastewater schemes. It is anticipated that construction will commence on some 50 new schemes. However, when these schemes were originally planned, some €560 million was made available. As the Deputy is aware, the amount had to be reduced but we continue to make good progress. It is anticipated that such progress will continue into 2010 and beyond. Up to 160 schemes will be in progress at the end of this year.
As a result of our EU commitments, we were obliged to move rapidly in respect of the provision of wastewater treatment plants. Since 2000, the Exchequer has spent €2.5 billion on the provision of wastewater infrastructure alone and some 144 major schemes have been completed in the interim. These schemes include the construction of very large wastewater treatment plants in Dublin — to which the Deputy referred and with which I am extremely familiar — Cork, Limerick, Galway, Wexford, Drogheda and Dundalk. New wastewater treatment facilities were also provided in many other smaller urban areas. In addition, some 105 wastewater schemes were provided under the serviced land initiative. The latter has been discontinued in light of the changed housing market.
Good progress has been made. The Deputy's point with regard to the delivery of infrastructure was highlighted elsewhere in recent times. Proposals on how we might invest pension funds in respect of the provision of infrastructure would give rise to a number of advantages. Wastewater treatment plants were specifically mentioned in this regard. The advantage of such investment is that it is off balance sheet and there is a great deal to be said for it.
Deputy Tuffy referred to the wastewater treatment plant in Ringsend, with which the Minister and I are extremely familiar. With regard to the proposals to extend the plant, is it planned to engage in a new tendering process or is it envisaged that the same failed consortium will continue to operate the plant? Is the Minister of the view that there might be a change in respect of how the contractual agreement might be arrived at? The scenario relating to the construction of the existing plant was bizarre because the company involved failed to deliver a suitable facility and to provide an efficient and adequate service for the city. However, it was rewarded when the Minister signed a document which allowed it to be paid €38 million or €39 million, even though it had failed to honour its contractual agreement.
It was not quite as straightforward as that. I am very familiar with this plant. I live very close to it. In fact, if Pigeon House Road is the starting point, I live on the same road. The problem is that both parties, Dublin City Council and the contractors, were blaming each other. The contractors were blaming Dublin City Council because in their own document they did not give adequate information and, likewise, we had criticism of the contractors. The net result was that the people we represent were caught in the middle and were faced with this dreadful odour.
It is correct that I invested money to deal with the problem. The odour problem has improved substantially on the basis of my own nose, but it returns intermittently.
Regarding the expansion, that is a matter for Dublin City Council. I understand the planning permission is extant and that it can go ahead and expand but on what contractual basis I cannot tell the Deputy at this stage because that is a matter for the local authority. I agree with the Deputy, however, that valuable lessons must be learned from what I can only describe as a debacle on the last occasion that should not be repeated and which, unfortunately, has given the whole idea a bad name to the extent that there are communities throughout the country that do not want a sewage treatment plant in their area.
I supported the idea, as did all the local representatives, of getting away from "NIMBYism" and having a sewage treatment plant that gives us a clean bay. That is one of the measures I supported.
An aspect I am very disturbed about is the fact that as a councillor and a local authority member I tabled an amendment which called for tertiary treatment and was supported by all of the council members at the time. This was a reserved function and despite that, and the fact that the plan was amended by the councillors, it was ignored by the management. In my view that is an affront to local democracy and completely unacceptable.
8 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on the conduct of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority regarding the Irish Glass Bottle site; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18179/09]
Since its establishment in 1997, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, which operates as a commercial entity and is funded entirely from its own resources, has engaged in the purchase, management, development and sale of lands in the Docklands area.
The authority, through its involvement in a joint venture company, Becbay Ltd., made a significant investment in the acquisition of the old Irish Glass Bottle Company, IGBC, site in Poolbeg.
I understand the authority took the view that the IGBC site was very significant in terms of the regeneration of the Poolbeg peninsula and that the manner in which this site was developed would set the tone for remaining development in the area. Accordingly, it decided to secure an interest in the site to achieve, in full measure, its overall objectives for the Poolbeg area as set out in its master plan.
This is regarded by the authority as a long-term investment. It is anticipated that the development of the Poolbeg peninsula will take place over five to ten years. Previously, the authority has been very successfully involved in extensions to the Irish Financial Services Centre area and the redevelopment of the former Bord Gáis site at Grand Canal harbour.
Significant concerns have arisen about the way this deal was originally arrived at and how it has been conducted over a period, particularly given that the payment of the interest on the loan has effectively stopped. It raises questions about the liquidity of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. The fundamental question that merits further investigation, and on which I hope the Minister agrees with me, is that the initial sum paid for the site was €411 million. That was, at the very least, €42 million more than the highest valuation of the site. It beggars belief that a public body, which essentially is what the Dublin Docklands Development Authority is, could justify that kind of expenditure and consider it in any way feasible. The site is now devalued at a minimum by 60%; that is probably a conservative estimate. Some valuers now value the IGBC site at €90 million. The problem is that with the establishment of the National Assets Management Agency and because Bernard McNamara and the other investors have essentially washed their hands of it in terms of paying the interest on the loan, the taxpayer has been lumped with paying the tab.
Does the Minister plan to review the ethical guidelines for the operation of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority? We saw a huge conflict of interest in terms of directors of Anglo Irish Bank, directors of the board of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and the sellers of the IGBC site to the Becbay Ltd. consortium, many of whom had business interests with existing directors on the DDDA at the time. Does the Minister support the call from the Oireachtas committee for the Comptroller and Auditor General to investigate not just the corporate governance aspect, but the specific property deals over which there are major question marks? Will the Minister give a commitment, as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, that he will not sign the development plan for the Poolbeg peninsula because that is linked to this issue? Ultimately, it will be in the Minister's hands. The deadline for submissions is this week but it is the Minister's call. He has the power not to sign the plan.
The Deputy's essential question is whether it merits further investigation. The answer is "Yes". That is one of the primary reasons I appointed someone who is an expert in corporate governance and who has great expertise in all of these areas, Professor Niamh Brennan, who will be assiduous in examining all of these matters. I agree we must examine them in great detail. Again, I am very familiar with this area, which is close to where I live.
On the Deputy's second question, I welcome the fact that the matter has been referred to the Comptroller and Auditor General and look forward to any findings that emerge from that process because we must have public confidence in this body. It is important to record also, lest we give the wrong impression, that the Dublin Docklands Development Authority has done very good work. The Deputy's colleague, Deputy Phil Hogan, who is a member of the particular committee, which I understand visited the area, said that the area in general had made massive strides when one considers the level of unemployment in the area years ago. He said it was a map similar to many other places throughout the country and that there was a blight there. I recall what the area was like before it was developed. The Dublin Docklands Development Authority has made tremendous strides but that cannot take away from the fact that this particular acquisition must be examined in detail.
The Minister did not answer my question on whether he will sign an order for the development to go ahead. I raised this matter on the Adjournment but unfortunately the Minister was not present in the Chamber. I welcome the appointment of Professor Niamh Brennan. She is a person of integrity but it is not feasible that she is in a position as head of the board of the DDDA to conduct an independent inquiry. That would be a bizarre situation. It would be worthwhile for the Minister to consider an independent inquiry.
First, the Minister mentioned an investigation. Does he know when that investigation will be completed? Second, I was watching a news report the other day about a conflict of interest being raised regarding the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. What is the Minister's view on that issue?
The Dublin Docklands Development Authority is nothing but a quango. Does the Minister agree with the Fine Gael view that Dublin City Council should ultimately be responsible for that area and that this quango should be abolished?
It is far too early to come to such a judgment. We must await the outcome of these inquiries.
In reply to Deputy Tuffy, the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General is an independent body. No Minister has, or should have, any influence on it. It will come to its own conclusions. It will inquire into whether the matter merits investigation. However, I welcome the fact that the matter has been referred to it.
On any planning matters, all of those issues must be properly scrutinised, when sensible decision can be made.
Approximately four minutes remains and we will try to get through Question No. 9.
9 Deputy Alan Shatter asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the way he is addressing the housing needs of the disabled; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18259/09]
In line with the Government's housing policy statement, Delivering Homes, Sustaining Communities, the development of a national housing strategy for people with a disability, which will support the provision of tailored housing and housing supports at local level, is under way and is scheduled for completion by the end of 2009.
Progress has also been made on the development of a suite of protocols to provide a strategic framework for inter-agency co-operation between housing authorities and the Health Service Executive. A protocol governing the assessment of the individual accommodation needs of certain people with a disability has been in operation since July 2007. Further protocols governing the funding arrangements between housing authorities and the HSE on ongoing support costs for social housing tenants and for the strategic assessment of the housing needs of people with a disability are currently being progressed.
Part M of the building regulations was amended in 2002 to include requirements on access to all dwellings by people with disabilities. A comprehensive review of Part M has since been carried out, in consultation with stakeholders, with a view to improving and broadening the scope of the relevant guidance. The outcome of this review will be released for public consultation shortly.
A wide range of supports are provided to meet the specific accommodation needs of people with a disability. These include the housing adaptation grant for persons with a disability, the adaptation grant for new houses and the mobility aids grant schemes, adaptation works to local authority houses and up to 100% grants to support the provision of specific accommodation by voluntary housing bodies. Notwithstanding the more constrained fiscal environment, meeting the housing needs of the most vulnerable sections of society, including persons with a disability, will continue to be prioritised by Government.
Colleagues must be brief.
On the length of the delay in local authorities processing the claims, is there anything at which the Department is looking to streamline and improve the turnaround time for applicants? Are all Departments and local authorities fully wheelchair accessible and do they have wheelchair accessible toilet facilities as well?
Has the housing adaptation funding of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government been issued to local authorities this week, as this is the fifth month of the year? Can the Minister explain the reason the issuing of this funding to local authorities has delayed into the fifth month of the year?
I would hope that the local authorities will give priority to this area. We set down some of the protocols and the others are for consultation shortly. We have the back-up in the areas of grants and Part M. I would hope that the local authorities, and local authority members, will ensure that takes place.
I understand the housing grants have been notified to local authorities this week. They are with the local authorities today, or if not, tomorrow. They have an allocation of almost €80 million for those grants for 2009.
The simple reason local authorities have not been notified of the grants until now is that we have only recently had the Revised Estimates. Having said that, I am pleased to say that we have almost €80 million available for housing grants for 2009.
The Minister of State made a significant comment here that needs to be cleared up in the House. He stated that the delay in the budget has to do with the Revised Estimates. It is the fifth month of the year. Is the Minister of State stating that the reason for this delay is because of the Revised Estimates? If that is the case, it would mean that the Department was looking at a revised budget estimate in January and February of this year. This is of critical importance to the House because it means that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have given us false information in reply to other questions. Is the Minister of State stating that the reason for the delay in this budget being issued is because of the Revised Estimates? If that is the case, how early in the year was the Department discussing that there would be Revised Estimates? The reply given by the Minister of State is a nonsense.
Deputy Lynch will be aware that local authorities put into their budgets a back-up, in some circumstances 30% towards the cost in the case of the older grant and 20% in this one.
That is not the question.
In the housing meetings which take place between officials and the Department, they discuss that and some local authorities put in more than others. Therefore, from early on they have an idea of the general amount they are getting.
That is not the question.
Deputy Lynch must find another way of dealing with it.
The final figure that has been notified is gone out today but discussions on these matters have taken place in housing meetings between the local authority officials and my officials——
The question is that the Minister of State is after stating in the House that the delay is because of the Revised Estimates.
Let the Minister of State finish.
——over the past number of months.
If that is the case, if that is the excuse the Minister of State is using, it means that there was a Revised Estimate being discussed at Cabinet in January and February of this year which means that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have given misleading information to this House on this question.
Nobody said that.
Deputy Lynch has made his point.
That is an assumption by the Deputy,——
The Minister has not answered the question.
——which, I note, is incorrect.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
