JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Tuesday, 25 Nov 2008

Domestic Waste Water Treatment Services: Discussion.

Chairman

Members will recall that before the summer recess presentations were made to the joint committee on waste water treatment services. We had meetings with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Environmental Protection Agency. Arising from these presentations we also met the Irish Agrément Board to brief us on its role in the matter. We now turn to the representative bodies for the industry and welcome the representatives of the Domestic Effluent Treatment Association, DETA, and the Irish Onsite Wastewater Association, IOWA. I welcome Mr. Patrick Buckley, sales manager with EPS and member of the DETA; Mr. Frank Cavanagh, honorary treasurer of the DETA and managing director of bioCycle Limited; Mr. John Molloy, chairman of the DETA and of John Molloy Engineering Limited, waste water engineers. We are also joined by Mr. Joe Walsh, vice chairman of the IOWA, and Mr. Richard Flynn and Ms Siobhán Shiel, committee members of the IOWA and certified site assessors. I thank them for coming.

When the subject of waste water treatment systems was discussed at the committee recently, a director of the Environmental Protection Agency advised that it did not approve or give preference to any waste water treatment system. It relies on other bodies to do that, such as the IAB, which certifies systems performing to specifications as set out. We understand the witnesses' organisations represent firms which manufacture the systems as certified by the Irish Agrément Board and we look forward to the comments on how the certification system works.

The format of our meeting today will involve a brief presentation from each of the organisations and we do not mind who speaks first. We will then have an open question and answer session. Perhaps the representatives of the Domestic Effluent Treatment Association, DETA, will proceed first by introducing themselves and we will take it from there.

Mr. John Molloy

I thank the Chairman for having us before the committee. We welcome the opportunity to put some views to the committee, and as we are the last of the stakeholders, we are delighted to contribute positively to the process. I am chairman of the DETA and we have already set out in a document sent to the committee the objectives of the DETA and its members. There is no need to go through it.

We are talking about on-site sewage treatment and disposal for single houses and the objective of the process is to protect the health and safety of the householder, as well as protecting ground and surface water from pollution. It is also useful to recall that there are about 500,000 on-site sewage treatment systems in the country and an EPA study indicates that up to 50% of those are creating pollution, which is a serious issue. This in turn raises the questions of how it has happened and how it can be prevented in future.

It is useful to consider the on-site sewage treatment and disposal process. There are five stages involved and these follow chronologically. The first is site assessment, when somebody decides to build a house, and this involves seeing if the site is suitable for on-site treatment and disposal. The next stage is selection of an appropriate piece of treatment equipment and design of a disposal system to suit the site. The third segment is the seeking of planning permission for the proposal and vetting of the design by the local authority. Various issues are involved but I will not go through them; I can address them later if the committee so wishes. The fourth stage is installation and certification of the system and the last stage is ongoing operation and maintenance. These are the five logical stages and in each of those issues must be dealt with.

If the committee so wishes I will go through each of these in turn and give some thoughts on them or answer questions on each of the stages. There is a ten-point action plan which details how we see the issue being tackled in future.

Chairman

The witness could read that for the record.

Mr. John Molloy

The first point is the publication of the EPA code of practice and its incorporation in the building regulations guidance section. As the committee knows, that document is quite a long time in preparation and it is essential for it to be published. It appears there will be no other action until that happens.

The second point is the setting out of clear lines of responsibility and liability for each of the five stages I previously mentioned and a detail of how these responsibilities will be enforced. The third point is the setting up of an approved site assessors' panel in each local authority area — the first stage involves site assessment.

The fourth point is the setting up of a procedure to police EN certification, which is a European standard for treatment plants coming down the tracks. Treatment plants can come in from abroad which may not necessarily have the required efficiency for this country. Therefore, there should be some method of policing EN certification.

The fifth point is the setting up of an approved system designer panel in each local authority. In other words, somebody must select appropriate equipment and design a suitable disposal system. Such people should be on an approved list. The sixth point is the establishment of a list of qualifications required by the certifiers of installations, as somebody must sign off on an installation and take responsibility for it. A list of appropriate qualifications should be prepared in each local authority area.

The next point is the setting up of an approved inspection enforcement panel in each local authority area, as there is currently none. The next point is the setting up of a database for all installed systems, similar to the Shannon river basin district project. It should be said that the Department of the Environment and Local Government has already outlined these steps in the circular document SP503. It is not new, and what we are doing is reinforcing what the Department has already issued as policy in 2003 but which has not come about.

The final point is the introduction of an incentive to upgrade existing systems which are creating pollution. We can comment further on that if the committee so wishes.

Chairman

Do any other members of the delegation wish to make a submission at this stage? We can proceed with such submissions before going to a general discussion.

Mr. Joe Walsh

I am managing director of Ash Environmental Technologies and vice chairman of the Irish Onsite Wastewater Association, IOWA. Our chairman sends his apologies as he is out of the country on business. The IOWA is an all-Ireland waste water association which represents the interests of those involved in the whole waste water area. Members include trained site assessors, engineers, consultants, local authority staff, researchers, trainers, system installers, operators, treatment system suppliers, tank manufacturers and pumpers and suppliers of percolation area products. We have the full range of people and our membership is approximately 250.

We have been concerned for some time about the lack of an overall strategy for the waste water industry in Ireland. Specific items of concern are the non-publication of the EPA waste water treatment manual, although it has been coming for quite a while. We have concerns about the European EN12566 standard, which is to provide the basis for regulating all the different components from waste water treatment systems to percolation areas, septic tanks and so on. We have concerns about the status of the current agrément certificate and the blending of it into this new EU regulation.

We are also concerned about building regulations, which now call up the SR6, which is the legal document rather than the EPA manual. We would like to see the circular SP5/03 referred to by Mr. John Molloy from the DETA, and I will comment on this further. Other areas of concern include the lack of education and certification for all participants involved in on-site waste waters; it is a grey area. There is also the poor installation and functioning of systems, lack of inspection, operation and maintenance and ongoing system management.

Our specific concerns would make us question if there is an overall strategy for on-site waste water in terms of guidelines, regulations and their enforcement. If there is one, who is responsible for co-ordinating and implementing it? We are not aware of an overall strategy. For industry participants, the lack of an overall strategy is very difficult and really does not make any sense. We need to be able to plan in advance and then feed into an overall strategy.

We have talked about the EPA manual. We have just had correspondence from the EPA which states that it hopes to have it finalised by the end of the year and published early in the new year. We hope it will specify waste water treatment requirements but we are not sure. The EU standard will provide percentage reductions of pollutants or contaminants, and we need as a country to specify exactly what standards we want our treatment systems to meet. That is important.

Will it be included in the building regulations to replace Standard Regulation 6, which is really just a document on septic tanks going back to 1991? That is important. When will the various parts of European standard EN12566 be adopted by local authorities? That has been a grey area. It is one thing to publish the document; we then need local authorities to take it on board, enforce it and use it as their assessment of the treatment systems to be used in each county. Alternatively, will there be a grace period to allow transition and system testing to the European standard? At the moment the system testing capacity does not exist in Ireland, which is a problem, as there is a bit of a queue for testing systems.

What is the plan for the existing agrément certificates, if there is no clarity as to the duration of their effectiveness? Will CE marking, which is the symbol of the European standard, be required by local authorities? We would like to know. Will CE marking be acceptable without agrément? Will local authorities allow systems to be installed without the mark? Will CE marking be included in the building regulations?

We spoke about circular SP5/03, which is a document issued by those involved in spatial planning in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government back in 2003. It contains many good elements that we in the industry would like to see as part of the regulatory system. Without delaying the meeting, I will give a couple of these points. The document mentions local authority adoption of site suitability assessment by certified installers. I grant that we are a long way towards meeting that. It specifies supervised installation and certification of all waste water installations and local authority databases of all waste water systems, the latter of which has not, to our knowledge, been enforced. It also mentions enforcement of the terms of planning conditions. Plans for buildings often contain provisions governing waste water treatment systems, but we question whether they are being enforced and followed up. We do not see much evidence of that. An annual programme of testing and monitoring of systems is also advocated in the circular letter. I point to this letter as a real basis for a positive move forward. It was issued to all councils five years ago. I will hand over to Mr. Flynn to give more detail from the perspective of site assessment.

Mr. Richard Flynn

I am a site assessor in private practice in County Clare. I am also a committee member of the IOWA. I will carry on from where Mr. Walsh finished.

A number of local authorities around the country have adopted the EPA manual and are insisting that, as a minimum requirement, waste water treatment systems are to be designed and installed in accordance with the EPA waste water treatment manual. The EPA manual requires the carrying out of a site suitability assessment to determine the suitability of a site for domestic waste water treatment for single houses. Some local authorities have created a panel to carry out the assessments in accordance with the EPA manual. Our qualified site assessor members, many of whom are suitably qualified persons on these local authority panels, as well as many local authority members who have implemented the EPA manual as part of the planning process, are very concerned that they are assessing, designing and supervising the installation of waste water treatment systems using a document which has no legal status. There may also be legal questions as to whether compliance with the building regulations has been properly achieved.

We have participated in the consultation process with the EPA and we understand the revised manual has been completed and is awaiting publication by the EPA. We firmly believe this needs to happen as a matter of priority. This will allow the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to implement its intentions as outlined in circular letter SP5/03 of 31 July 2003, and proceed with calling up the revised EPA manual in Technical Guidance Document H of the building regulations and the subsequent withdrawal by the NSAI of SR6 in favour of the revised EPA manual. We thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today.

Mr. Frank Cavanagh

I thank the committee for the opportunity to say a few words. I will be brief.

I am the managing director of MSI, an engineering company which is involved with bioCycle. I spent 14 years working with a European standards group for the harmonisation of standards such as we mentioned. In the area of waste water treatment, some of the committee members have had correspondence from me. We have spoken about all the issues. Currently in Ireland we have SR6, the agrément system, the EPA and so on. This has resulted in a situation in which nobody is responsible and nobody is accountable. People talk about the EN standard as though it will sort out our problems. Unless we have a very clear picture of what EN12566 is, it is more important to note what it is not. It will not be a design standard. It is purely a method of testing a product. When we started working 14 years ago on a harmonised standard, one could say we started on a grade of 10, but we are now probably down at 1. At least it is something. However, at the moment Ireland has nothing. Most of the other advanced countries could see that it was better to have something rather than nothing and they are prepared to work with their existing standards until such time as the EN standard comes up to their levels.

The test procedure is a good one. The only test centre in Ireland does not have this system; the UK does not have one. The nearest is in Aachen in Germany. Suppliers must send their products to Germany where it is tested for almost 12 months. It is a good exercise because it gives a fair indication to the supplier of how its system will work under certain conditions, but nothing more. Unless a system is put in place, what we will have, as we have at the moment, is a total smokescreen. I do not know what will come out in the EPA document, but if that document does not set out very clearly that it is purely a guidance document and nothing more, it allows us to use it as something to hide behind. At the moment all we are required to do by the local authorities is to make sure the system we supply or design is in accordance with the EPA. In most situations our company must issue a big disclaimer because we know a system will not work in a certain situation. However, it is a planning condition, so the system of bureaucracy takes over. Systems go in which will probably never work, and who is responsible? I put that question to members.

Unless we come up with a system of making somebody responsible and accountable for the products we design and supply, we will be going from the frying pan into the fire. At the moment there are probably 500,000 septic tanks on the ground which may not be working for the simple reason that SR6, the document from the Department, did not set down a required performance or durability. It is as simple as that. If SR6 had set out what this piece of equipment should do and how long it should last, we would not have the problem faced in the country today.

Chairman

All the members are from different counties; I am from County Laois. My understanding is that as part of the planning process a person must submit a site-specific report with the planning application. Surely it is not just a question of SR6. The person must also do a site-specific report which obviously takes into account the ground conditions. Surely that addresses what Mr. Kavanagh has been talking about. Can he tell us if it does not? Other people come to the committee and we do not expect them all to have the same view.

Mr. Frank Cavanagh

A person who does a site assessment report is assessing a site's suitability for percolation. They asked him to report and assess site suitability for percolation. They are not designing the treatment process but are assessing the site to see if it is suitable for a treatment plant. It is nothing more than that. In most cases they do not design the percolation area or the treatment plant. However, in some cases they design the percolation area.

We are very happy if a person does a site assessment report and submits it to our company when we are supplying a product. It takes the onus of responsibility from us. It is an onerous task. If people get that wrong, they get planning permission based on a site assessment report. If their results are wrong and there is no solution, the person who carried out those results might be liable for the costs of the entire development which could run into millions of euro. This is a serious issue in respect of site assessments.

We have an issue with regard to insurance. When we give a proposal based on site assessments, it is incumbent on us as a company to ensure the person who carried out the assessment has proper professional indemnity. Any that we have received to date are not accepted by our insurers as being suitable for the task they have undertaken. We have now cut ourselves out of the system and find we cannot take on the project because the other party's insurers in respect of site assessment will not stand over us to supply product. This creates a problem and there are many areas that must be addressed. With regard to site assessments, someone, perhaps from the institute of engineers, should set out very clearly where the task starts and finishes.

Mr. Joe Walsh

I will clarify one matter regarding the question. The document SR6 is a legal instrument. Many councils have adopted the Environmental Protection Agency guidance document 2005 which sets out the detailed site assessment criteria mentioned. The problem is that there is a question mark as to its legal validity. Building regulations reference SR6 1991. Many councils are using an EPA manual which is a guidance document. Some have pulled back from that and that is why we believe the issue must be examined. In 2007 there was a consultation draft. We believe the document has been prepared and the intention is to publish it and install it into building regulations to legalise what is in practice by many councils. However, because many councils have pulled back on grounds of legality, there is confusion. There is a vacuum.

Deputy Phil Hogan

I welcome the organisations that are making representations on this very important matter. The committee decided to do some study on this for two reasons. First, we believe a system can be found to deal with any problem. Whether we are right or wrong about that I do not know but the delegates will tell us. We are discovering a great deal about site assessment reports as well as about the products. Second and of equal, if not more, importance, there are 500,000 systems in the country and 50% of them are failing. It is a staggering admission that, over the past ten or 15 years of considerable intensive development in this country, we have failed. We have the two-pronged approach here to deal with the situation.

I never heard of the Irish Agrément Board until it was brought to my attention some time ago. It was an interesting group but I can see that it was useless from the point of view of product development. It does not solve any problem and I do not know why it is in the chain of events at all. I agree with Mr. Cavanagh's assessment that someone must be in charge. No one is responsible as such and the matter is kicked around, as it were, from the Department to the local authorities to Mr. Cavanagh's company and the EPA. Even the European Union gets in on the act with regard to certain matters but no one is responsible or accountable. This committee is interested in that situation.

I have some questions. First, what impact does EN12566 have? Mr. Walsh mentioned parts 1 to 7 in his document. Will he explain it a little further to the members? What does he mean by implementation of those parts 1 to 7?

Second, what do the speakers believe is the right type of approach the State should adopt? This is notwithstanding the developments that are taking place, both one-off and those developments over the past ten to 15 years that have allowed our ground water to get into a situation worse than in many countries in Europe. How will we sort out the problem of ground water contamination?

Third, Mr. Cavanagh mentioned that the law holds the home owner solely responsible for the safe functioning of the system rather than the manufacturer or the installer of the product. Will he address that issue and explain what representations have been made to the Department with regard to making the manufacturer or installer more liable? Home owners know nothing about these systems and depend on people such as the delegates to be truthful and honest and to give them the best system for the site conditions they have. How can we ensure the consumer is king in these matters?

Mr. Joe Walsh

Concerning the European standard, EN12566, the delay referred to by Mr. Cavanagh means that production of the regulation is taking a long time. It was published about two years ago but this delay followed. It is supposed to be the European normalisation standard, governing everything from the structural integrity of the tank, the percolation area and the treatment capability of the system. The fact that it is still not published or available for call-up by the different councils has caused some confusion. The Irish Agrément Board has been testing systems in the interim. There has always been some concern about how long those certificates would be valid and when the European standard would come into force. There is a gap and clarity is required concerning the transition from agrément certification to the new EU standard that will be the future norm.

The Deputy's second point concerned how this matter should be sorted. We feel it needs a thorough broad brush approach governing all the different aspects. Education is required across the board. Our association is trying to participate in doing that and we have held two annual conferences attended by 250 people from all the different elements of the industry. The first conference was part of the consultation process for the Environmental Protection Agency manual. The second was educational and several university people from the United States gave us the benefit of their experience. There is no point in reinventing the wheel here. There is a lot of information available into which we can tap.

There must be a concerted approach, dealing with education and the training of people who do installations because of the way the industry has evolved. Site assessment has been picked up already and there are approximately 800 very good site assessors throughout the country who do that work. There are treatment systems. That is the good part. However, we leave installation to people who are really untrained. Many installations are done by builders or by people who are trying to do their best but who do not have the expertise. Knowledge is not made available to them as to how they should approach installation. A qualified person must be made responsible for overseeing an installation and for signing off on it with a declaration that it has been installed in accordance with planning guidelines and permissions. It must then be inspected on an annual or semi-annual basis to ensure it is performing adequately and is not polluting our receiving waters and environment. We need an integrated approach.

Mr. John Molloy

We are more or less on the same lines spelled out by Mr. Walsh. We have identified five separate stages involved in the process. Each is a link in a chain and if any one breaks down, the required end result will not be achieved, namely, to protect the health of the householder and to protect the ground and surface water. Each stage must be looked at in turn and any issues that present must be resolved. The Domestic Effluent Treatment Association, DETA, policy position is that the only people who can hold the reins are those in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It prepared the roadmap in 2003 and we do not have authority over any of the other players. The Department must be the body to move this along and to regulate and enforce all five separate stages properly. I do not know whether that answers the question.

Chairman

Does anyone else wish to comment?

Mr. Frank Cavanagh

Ireland implemented the EN12566 standard in 2005 and it was transposed here as IS EN12566. We adopted but never implemented the standard. The UK implemented it approximately two years ago. There is nothing to stop the Department implementing it in the morning if it so wishes and if there is a will to do so. I do not know why this has not happened. In 2000, Ireland adopted the IS part 1, a very stringent test standard for septic tanks. Again, the standard was adopted but never implemented here and I do not know why.

The question of how we protect consumers was asked. Some 18 years ago when treatment plants were first introduced in the marketplace, they were only accepted on the basis that they could replace a septic tank. The clearly stated position of local authorities at the time was that the product was only acceptable if one could prove it was not capable of reverting to a septic tank. They set down very clear benchmarks. Local authorities stated adamantly that unless the product incorporated all the essential features such as alarms, failure contingency plans, overflows and so on, and it could be proved to the local authorities that there was negligence on the part of the home owner, it was not acceptable if the equipment was capable of reverting to a septic tank. As a company we had to adapt to all the essential criteria to ensure the product would be safe for the environment and the user and that it would have all essential safety features, including alarms. For some reason known only to the Department, it dispensed with all the essential safety features set down at the time and I do not know why this was so. This is still the case with the market today and many products do not incorporate essential safety criteria.

Mr. John Molloy

Deputy Hogan asked how the householder could be protected. In today's newspaper there is a recommendation for the industry as a result of a study by the National Consumer Agency. It devised a new system of certification and compliance with the building regulations and recommends this system should be introduced. In a nutshell, all subcontractors on a project would be required under this system to indicate they have completed their work in accordance with the regulations, which does not happen at present. The end user is protected when someone takes responsibility for each of the stages. He or she then has a paper trail and can see who is responsible for each element until the problems are located. That is how we see it.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I welcome the submissions, the delegates from the DETA, and the enlightenment provided by them on this very important subject. Mr. Molloy indicated the DETA was the last stakeholder to be involved. Nevertheless, it is a very important stakeholder. There are serious problems in this area. I have had experience of these problems in cases of one-off housing, in the planning process of which I have been very involved throughout the years. I know of several planning applications turned down specifically because of the effluent treatment proposals.

There is a grey area about which I have concerns. No one seems to take responsibility, which is of significant concern to me and to anyone wishing to install a treatment plant in an appropriate way that is above board. I do not know from where the figure suggesting 50% of treatment plants in place at present are not operating properly came. Was it from the Environmental Protection Agency or was there a private assessment? There is no shortage of those willing to help out in this matter. There are nine representatives present from firms manufacturing these plants. What percentage of the overall total of those involved in the business does that represent? I would like to see someone take control of these matters and to devise some definite guidelines. I believe the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should take a leading role. It does not involve rocket science to get the stakeholders together and to bring it to a head once and for all, if only to alleviate the concerns of those building single houses in the countryside. Such people may have concerns about the type of treatment plant being installed and whether it is suitable for their needs.

I was informed by the EPA at a meeting that there are treatment plants which can operate in any type of soil and which can treat any type of effluent. Clarification on that matter is very important. Different counties have different types of soil and different areas within counties have different types of soil. It is important no matter what we do in the future that this serious problem is tackled in the correct manner. I do not think it involves rocket science to get together and resolve this matter once and for all. I may have further questions later on.

Chairman

I call Deputy Lynch. Several speakers will have an opportunity to contribute and I will call Deputy O'Sullivan again.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

I thank the Chairman. It is remarkable that before the committee there is a group representing an industry which demands regulation and that the Government for many years has failed to deliver it. This is outrageous. The delegation is not proposing solutions for its problems. The solutions are in place but have not been implemented. Rather than discussing the matter with the delegation, we should seek the plans of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in this area. Let us cut to the chase. The industry seeks regulation. Groups have appeared before committees in the Oireachtas in recent weeks, such as the banks, on whom we have tried to impose regulation. This group seeks regulation, the blueprints are in place, yet nothing has been done, which is remarkable.

There is an action plan containing ten points and if we focus on the second point we can find the solution. This point outlines the need for clear lines of responsibility and liability for each stage. It further sets out how those responsibilities could be enforced. That is the nub of the matter. The manufacturer has a responsibility for the product it designs. I know nothing about septic tanks and I come from an urban constituency, but systems are systems no matter what is being produced. Those involved in the process include the manufacturer, the purchaser, the installer, the person who services the product and the person who owns it. These are all the stages along the line. If does not matter if one is producing a biscuit or a septic tank, the lines of responsibility are the same. It is clearly stated that the granting of planning permission must be tied to a specific product. However, the delegation has indicated it is possible to include one product in a planning application, but use another in the ground at a later date.

If I move into a house this afternoon, Bord Gáis and the ESB must visit, and a Register of Electrical Contractors of Ireland certificate and gas certificate must be issued before I can turn on my cooker and immersion to show that the specifications are in place. The same level of compliance should apply to a septic tank and should be the responsibility of the local authority or a statutory agency, such as the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. These systems are in place for other services that are flowing in and out of a house such as electricity and gas. Sewerage pipes coming from a house should be certified.

The committee should not beat around the bush with long-winded comments. We are at the second point; there are stages that need regulation and people should be responsible and held to account. When I moved house some years ago a plumber fixed the washing machine. I asked if he could also fix the gas and he said he could not because he was not certified for the specific work. It should not be the case that I buy a product and a builder slaps it in. A builder should have certification to install a product and be liable for its installation afterwords.

We could discuss this until 5.30 p.m. but there is a Minister with responsibility for this issue. A remarkable story was told here and a solution has been available for a number of years. I can answer the question on why nothing has happened in the building industry, and it is because the tent was folded some months ago but the mentality remains. Regulation in the property market is long overdue and the example we heard today is symptomatic of why it is needed. I thank the delegation for appearing before the committee and explaining the situation clearly.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I thank the delegates for their presentation. It has been said there is one area in particular which is not regulated properly. When the standard is implemented the site will be assessed and will be covered by planning law but the installation and design is the main area where there is a gap. Mr. Walsh said he was hopeful that the EPA revised document will cover that. Is that correct?

Mr. Joe Walsh

It should provide certain guidance for people to design an installation if it is enforced.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Mr. Walsh said it should be referred to in the building regulations and Mr. Cavanagh said something similar. Is it sufficient to mention it in the building regulations or should there be more specific guidelines? Mr. Walsh said, "Call up the EPA document", but would it need to be specified more clearly in the building regulations to ensure the necessary legal basis is in place?

Mr. Molloy mentioned the National Consumer Agency. If the recommendation of Ms Ann Fitzgerald was implemented, namely, that each subcontractor was obliged to sign off, would that cover installations satisfactorily?

Regarding the implementation of the design standard, the existing standard has not yet been implemented and there is a new one coming. Is this a breach of European Union law? Is there a directive that requires implementation of that standard? If there was, Ireland could be taken to court on the matter.

Senator Paudie Coffey

I thank the delegates for their presentation. I agree with previous speakers that this is a very important matter and is something I look forward to working on with the committee. We will produce a report based on the contributions made from various sectors. The contribution today has been very valuable.

I am concerned about the excessive failure rates of various systems installed all over the country and this committee needs to analyse that further, through the Department or the EPA. It concerns us all, action is needed and I will consider the action plan proposed by the delegation. There are clear messages for the committee and Department that there are no roles of responsibility or accountability in the entire procedure; from site assessment to installation to maintenance there is no accountability anywhere and people from all sectors, such as the householder, local authority, installer or supplier, are allowed to walk away from their responsibilities. There are failures along the line and there may be rogue suppliers who install inadequate facilities.

Deputy Lynch referred to the electrical industry in Ireland which is fairly well developed and has a decent standard. The Electro-Technical Council of Ireland sets the standard and the industry itself is regulated through RECI and other organisations such as the Electrical Contractors Safety and Standards Association. I stand to be corrected but regulations were only introduced in the late 1980s or early 1990s and improved the efficiency and standard of domestic and industrial installations. The delegation is looking for something similar, with a clear level of accountability and a clear standard set.

If the committee looks at that model it can be seen that we do not need to reinvent the wheel; we are being told how to improve the standard. There are lists of registered installers who are fully certified and comply with all the regulations, and they cannot go on the contractor's list unless they produce evidence of certification and proper education. The delegation's message is that certificates are given to installers who are not adequate and I ask them to clarify their position. FÁS and other agencies are issuing certificates for the installation of these systems without taking the scientific elements and ground water systems of installation sites into account. The area of education and training must also be examined and this is something on which the committee needs to focus.

As suppliers of systems, does the delegation keep a database of its installations and the maintenance contracts with clients over the years? That may be helpful at a later stage to catch up and have proper systems in place.

Mr. Molloy said that point 10 of the action plan recommended the introduction of incentives to upgrade existing installations, and I ask him to elaborate further. Will there be financial or other incentives? The committee has a role to play in considering the views of the delegation and I look forward to doing that in our final report.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

I find it difficult to understand why manufacturers say that 50% of the equipment they install does not work correctly. Is the delegation referring to other installers who are not part of their organisation or do they include themselves?

I do not know if people are still installing the old septic tanks. A number of them are still being used, are working well and are not causing any problems.

There is another issue on which I would like clarity. The delegation referred to the site inspection.

Mr. Richard Flynn

The site assessment.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

Sorry, assessment. What is the responsibility and liability of the association after the work is done? Is the association liable for the report it gives or is it covered by insurance? Does the installer have to produce any documentation to show he or she is qualified to install the system? In Kildare, one must install the system for which one applied when seeking planning permission. If not, one's planning permission is not in order. In Kildare, people who sell their houses go back to the council for the planning permission and inquire about the inspections. It is an annual inspection and if it is not carried out, there is a problem with the planning permission. Those two issues are being taken on board by Kildare County Council.

As stated by the witnesses, the regime for putting the system in place will cost substantially more for the house owner because all the people involved will need insurance, certificates and so on. Is there any way in which the law can be enforced under planning regulations rather than requiring people to be insured in respect of three or four different stages? They all have to carry their own insurance.

We were told previously there is a system in place to cover all eventualities. If the witnesses' association is asked to provide a system for Joe Bloggs, will it have a report completed to match its system, or will it tell Joe Bloggs that its system does not suit his site and suggest that he contact Mr. Joe Walsh or somebody else to have a different system installed?

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

In County Sligo, site assessments are carried out on every site. The council has a list of people who are qualified to carry out those tests. However, there are still problems. I am aware of an individual case where a person had two inspections.

Chairman

Every site for a rural house must have a percolation test.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

That is what I am talking about.

Chairman

Some of what we are talking about here includes the failure of a percolation test. Where one of the associations' systems are being installed, there has to be a site specific report for the system. Therefore, there are two. To which assessment is the Deputy referring, the initial percolation test or——

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

Both. There is no point in applying for planning permission if the percolation test does not pass because it will be refused straight away. One can have a site assessment carried out——

Chairman

With one of these systems.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

——and then get a professional person to recommend what should be done to improve the ground conditions. I would have thought that the witnesses' associations, being the manufacturers, should install these systems. I understand some of their members will install the system. That is the way forward. It is very unfair to cast the entire responsibility on the house owner who, in fairness, does not have a clue about these systems. That is not the way forward. Any system manufactured by the witnesses' associations should be installed by them.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

Is it the case that the witnesses represent the associations mentioned here and not anybody else? Is that the organisations' full representation? Can the witnesses' organisations stand over their product? If they install one of those products can they stand over it and for what timescale? How many systems are available?

Mr. Frank Cavanagh

By right, the waste water treatment product or the septic tank is an integral part of any development. If something goes wrong, it should be commercial suicide for the company that has installed it. If somebody has found that the treatment plant does not work or the percolation area does not work, the home owner has a right of redress. The home owner, the consumer, needs to be more informed. There are plenty of regulations in place.

In regard to the EPA document, the EPA met with us about six months ago but did not listen; it was telling. I asked whether the new EPA document would take on board consumer law but it did not want to know. I asked whether it would take on board general product safety regulations and again the EPA did not want to know. Unless that document addresses consumer and product regulations, it is dead in the water before it is published.

There should be an onus on the company that supplies and installs the system to give a certified guarantee that it will work. The problem is that many companies sell off the shelf. The only way one can certify a system is when it has been installed for six or nine months and is in operation. Up to that time, everything is based on an assumption. One uses one's best judgment call to make an assessment because one does not know what type of waste will come from that house but makes an educated calculation. The onus is on the company to go back after six or nine months to check whether that piece of equipment is working. If not, the onus is on the company to rectify it and make it work. The problem is that nobody is checking or monitoring the system and, therefore, nothing is happening. Deputy Scanlon is correct. There should be an onus on the company which is supplying very specialised equipment and the home owner has a right to know that equipment will work for an indefinite period and will be safe to use.

Mr. Patrick Buckley

Deputy O'Sullivan asked the number of manufacturers we represent. The fact that some of us represent site assessors causes slight confusion. The Domestic Effluent Treatment Association, DETA, represents the manufacturers of the actual systems. The Irish Onsite Water Association, IOWA, represents some manufacturers but also all the other stakeholders such as site assessors, suppliers of other equipment involved in the entire system, local authority members, etc. In regard to the number of companies represented by both organisations, approximately 16 companies, manufacturers of systems, are represented by these two organisations.

Chairman

For the record, the Irish Agrément Board said there were approximately 29.

Mr. Patrick Buckley

Approximately 30.

Chairman

There are a few outside both organisations.

Mr. Patrick Buckley

Some of those who are not represented by either of our associations are very reputable Irish companies and have a good product. It should not reflect badly on them that they are not a member of either association. We would always encourage them to join our associations and I hope they will do so in the long term.

A number of Deputies asked if there is a treatment system that would solve a problem on every site. My experience is that is not the case. There are sites where one will never ever arrive at a solution. There are alternative solutions for various sites but there is no one system or combination of systems that will solve every potential problem. I refer to a practice which has been ongoing in Denmark for the past ten years where closed loop systems are installed, using a type of willow system. Essentially, there is no discharge from the household. Technically that is an option for the Irish environment, but there are other technical aspects that need to be looked at. It is an option in terms of being a solution for every site. As we speak, it is not in place in the Irish context.

With regard to EN12566 certification, it is important to have a policing system. It is also important that our code of practice and in-house business be sorted out. All the data is available in different documents and is being discussed and has been thrown from post to pillar since 2003. It is important to put it all together. We see the code of practice as the start. If we can get it into the buildings regulations it will mean a standardisation across all local authorities and stakeholders and will be a starting point. The difficulty with EN12566 certification not having a clear distinction with regard to its policing, enforcement and use is that there will be a flooding of the market with systems that have been EN certified in a variety of other countries across the EU member states.

I will cite an example. Approximately 11 or 12 years ago, Germany introduced a subsidy system — to which I will refer in terms of further clarification — and as a result all of the existing waste water companies and all the new companies that formed because of the market generated in that country, have led to a scenario where some of the most advanced systems in terms of research and development and expertise have emerged out of Germany. Many of those companies will come into the Irish market with their systems, some of which are good and others that are not good.

The difficulty we see with that is that there might not be a clear distinction and a clear policing system where people can clarify the position. Just because it is EN certified is not the end of the process. It proves that the product is watertight and that it has the structural capability to last in the environment where it is installed but that is only one small part of the entire process. It is important to clarify that but it is important also that people can compare certificates for each individual system in an open, transparent and unbiased manner. That is why it is important that a mechanism is put in place where all certificates can be clarified, assessed and put up for everyone to assess.

With regard to the subsidy system, which is the tenth point in our plan, a number of the members of the DETA have examined various countries which have had subsidy systems and the way they have developed in those countries. They have allowed for the development of advanced and innovative treatment technologies and an examination of all the aspects of the treatment of waste water, and not just two chemical parameters. They also examined the nutrients parameter we all hear about with regard to algae blooms, etc., and phosphorous and nitrogen. They have examined methods of reducing those levels further, which is important with regard to the nitrates directive and the phosphorous regulations with which I am sure members are familiar.

On the subsidy system we envisage, we have examples of it with regard to the renewable energy, solar panel and the geothermal systems grants, which have been operating here for the past few years. That has led to the building energy rating, BER, assessors and the regulations that have all gone down that route. We are examining the possibility of a water grant per se which could be an extension of the existing rural water grant for the upgrade or replacement of an existing well, which many local authorities are implementing already. The actual infrastructure is in place to administer any scheme that would be established by the Department and it should be examined——

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

There is something on that in the programme for Government also.

Mr. Patrick Buckley

I was just about to mention that. A Green Party proposal in the programme for Government was that all installations 15 years or older would be allowed apply for a subsidy to upgrade or replace that system if it proved to be defective. We are proposing that it is not just the treatment on a site that must be examined but the water and the water conservation. We are conscious that it is a difficult time economically with regard to providing grants and subsidies with the various cuts across a raft of sectors that have to be implemented for obvious reasons but this type of grant subsidy system will be very positive because it will deal with the problem of all the existing defective systems, and whether that is 50% or 100% of €500,000 we will find out once we start getting through the process of implementing that subsidy.

A large number of site assessors have been trained and are up and running. They will assess the existing sites and produce a report on whether they need to be upgraded. If there is a defective system on a site it will be replaced with a new EN certified system. It is installed correctly as per the new code of practice and the percolation area and the disposal system is correctly installed and monitored to ensure it will do its job. Someone will then sign off on that installation to verify that it has conformed to all of the regulations in force to date. That is the certificate of compliance for the construction industry referred to in today's Irish Independent. It will also give the home owners peace of mind, before they draw down their subsidy, that everything has been done correctly. If there is a 50% grant, therefore, the 50% they have now expended is money well spent because everything has been done correctly as per the systems, if they are all implemented.

Water conservation must be examined also. Numerous suggestions have been made for the installation, upgrading or introduction of rainwater harvesting systems also. Combined waste water treatment and rainwater harvesting on the one site will lead to a conservation of water use and protect the existing groundwater.

The positive aspects of that for the industry is that it will raise the standards upwards and create an environment where all of the manufacturers and stakeholders will become more innovative in terms of the technologies they use. They will invest money in research and development in this industry and create a knowledge based economy in terms of on-site waste water treatment where potentially we will have a product and services that can be exported from this country. Rather than having companies from other countries coming here and giving us their systems for our environment, I would prefer to see Irish companies creating Irish jobs, coming up with the solutions to our problems and exporting that knowledge.

Mr. John Molloy

I will deal with the question of the 57% of faulty systems. The €500,000 refers to all systems — septic tanks, packaged treatment plants and so on. It is all the on-site sewage disposal systems. On the 57%, if I may I will read into the record an extract from the An Bord Pleanála annual report for 2006. It states:

The Chairperson said that the recent E.P.A. report on water quality prompted him to repeat previous concerns about the effect of the ongoing proliferation of septic tanks (including proprietary systems) associated with houses in the countryside. The 15 -17,000 rural houses being built every year are adding to pressure on ground water resources and must be accounting for some of the decline in standards reported by the E.P.A. (57% of ground water sampling locations were contaminated by faecal coliforms). Over one-third of refusals of rural houses by the Board feature risk of pollution as a reason. Some local authorities are still granting planning permission without having a full set of drainage tests or without a proper assessment of the tests that are submitted.

That shows there is inconsistency among counties as to the way the regulations are being applied.

Deputy Phil Hogan

Mr. Molloy has hit the nail on the head in terms of one of the major issues facing us as public representatives. We have no problem about consistency but we have major problems with inconsistency. Getting every local authority to sing off the one hymn sheet is the problem, and it comes back to what was said, namely, that nobody is in charge of this area in an overall sense across the country. It is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and it should take charge of this area but it is passing responsibility for it between the EPA, the agrément board etc. We are in an era of rationalisation and efficiency and we have a good deal of scope here in that regard.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I agree with Deputy Hogan. This concerns doing something about the quality of our water and we will probably face European Union fines in the future if we do not get our act together. It is an issue that will have to be taken in hand. The Department has a tendency to hive off responsibilities to somebody else and then ignore them as if it has nothing to do with them. We must pass the buck back to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on this issue.

Mr. Patrick Buckley

I am conscious that many of the members here represent rural constituencies and am aware of the difficulties public representatives face in a rural environment. On the one hand, there is the need for restrictions on one-off houses in rural environments outside of the urban centres and, on the other, the desire of people who want to live in a rural environment. One of the reasons given for refusals by various agencies is the lack of transparency, low standards and problems with pollution from treatment plants or on-site systems.

It is in the long-term interest of rural development that the guidelines and the steps we are outlining are implemented. They will not only highlight the problems that exist, but they will be identified, dealt with and such measures would guard against problems arising in the future. In that way, the argument can be made that rural housing will be sustainable as we move forward. That is an important point in this process.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

On that issue, it is not for me to tell Mr. Flynn or his colleagues that the report Mr. Buckley completed for the household concerned is wrong. I was working on the basis that what he said is correct and that the treatment plant he recommends for that site is also correct. Is it not true that the system falls down on follow-on stage after the plant has been installed? Is there a responsibility on providers to contact the householder on a half-yearly or annual basis? A condition attaches to some approved planning applications that an annual inspection of such plants is required.

Mr. Patrick Buckley

They require maintenance contracts.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

The applicant must have signed a maintenance contract. Who is responsible for following up that requirement? Is it the householder?

Mr. Patrick Buckley

The householder.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

The onus is on the householder. Therefore, the householder is liable for damage caused by the plant if the maintenance contract is not complied with.

Mr. Patrick Buckley

Numerous companies have written to all their customers in this respect — we have tried to encourage various companies to do so — but the response rate is poor. People will not take up a maintenance contract because the incentive is not there for them to do so. There is no procedure or enforcement mechanism requiring a householder to obtain a maintenance certificate annually for his or her system. Many local authorities have been provided with information concerning our customers in respect of sites we have assessed. We would encourage a follow-up on those people and a request of certificates of service from them on an annual basis, but currently such a system is not in place.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

People who want to sell their homes——

Mr. Patrick Buckley

They must do this.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

They do not know about that requirement. Perhaps Mr. Buckley's industry should notify them of it.

Mr. Patrick Buckley

They have been notified. The position is similar to that of a person who buys a new car in that it is fair to assume he or she would know that the car will have to be serviced. The car company will give the purchaser a warranty for a certain period, but the purchaser knows that if he or she continues to drive the car and does not change the filters, break pads or oil and the car breaks down four years later, he or she cannot blame the manufacturer. The position is no different in the case of a treatment plant. If one has a water pump and it gives trouble, one will get it serviced because one needs to drink water. There is a different psychology in terms of people's attitude towards on-site waste water treatment plants. That is what we need to change.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

Should Mr. Buckley's industry not be proactive in notifying its customers——

Mr. Patrick Buckley

We are.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

——and informing them of the position because it cannot depend on the local authorities to do this? They will not do it.

Mr. Patrick Buckley

The industry is proactive and we provide an operation and maintenance manual with every product. We contact our customers on an annual basis and encourage them to have service contracts because it is in our interests to do so from a monetary viewpoint and to ensure our products work properly and are not defective.

Deputy Phil Hogan

It should be mandatory.

Mr. Patrick Buckley

It should be but, unfortunately, people will not spend €150 or €200 per year to have their systems certified as working properly. That is the difficulty.

Mr. Richard Flynn

On Deputy Tuffy's question as to whether it is enough to include the EPA manual in the building regulations, it is not, but it is the first step. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government took a major step in July 2003 with the issuing of circular letter SP5/03 but since then there has been no further progress. The next step is to implement the provisions of the EPA manual and follow on with implementation and enforcement of those provisions which need to be done by the local authorities.

On Deputy Scanlon's question, some local authorities have implemented the EPA manual. Part of that is a requirement that every applicant applying for permission to build a one-off house needs to have a site suitability assessment carried out by an independent site assessor. Our business is not tied to that of any manufacturers. The requirement is to assess the suitability of a site for waste water treatment, be it for a septic tank or secondary or tertiary treatment with waste water systems. We consider the whole picture. We do not merely decide whether a site is suitable for a septic tank and then decide if a secondary treatment system is suitable.

On the question of whether there is a solution for all sites, the answer is "No", that is the bottom line. Treating waste is not a problem. The representatives from the DETA will advise members that they can provide a system that will treat most waste, it is the moving of treated waste water that poses the problem. If there is no movement of it, it will give rise to bigger issues.

On the question of assessors, local authorities are creating panels of suitably qualified site assessors. There is a requirement that they must have professional indemnity insurance.

Chairman

When Mr. Flynn speaks about a site assessor, does he mean an assessor to carry out the initial assessment?

Mr. Richard Flynn

A site assessor will assess a site for the suitability of waste water treatment.

Chairman

Would this be done prior to the submission of a planning application?

Mr. Richard Flynn

Yes, prior to the planning application being submitted.

Chairman

In County Laois that is done exclusively by council staff. They have rejected the concept of it being done by those in the private sector because, clearly, there are conflicts of interest between the person who is responsible for submitting the planning application and the person engaged to assess the site. Some of us will recommend that it might be a safer bet for a local authority rather than for those in the industry to do that. We will come to deal with that aspect, but I wanted to make that point. There is a mix in terms of those who make the assessments.

Mr. Richard Flynn

Yes. Deputy Hogan said a variety of things are happening.

Mr. John Molloy

There is a very important stage between the site assessment, which involves the percolation test, and the application for planning permission. Somebody must select an appropriate treatment plant and design the disposal system. It may not be the person who does the percolation test. That person may give those results to another person who must take them on board and design a suitable on-site sewage disposal system.

Chairman

Do both organisations assess sites for septic tanks as well as for treatment plant systems?

Mr. John Molloy

Yes.

Mr. Richard Flynn

Yes.

Chairman

The representatives mentioned both and I wanted to clarify that.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

Does Mr. Flynn know the number of assessors in this business?

Mr. Richard Flynn

I am involved in this business in Clare, Limerick and to a lesser extent in south Tipperary. County Kerry is coming on line in this respect in January. On average, taking account of those four counties, there are 30 to 35 assessors.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

Is the assessment carried out by Mr. Flynn's organisation acceptable to the manufacturer of the specific plant that is to be installed?

Mr. Richard Flynn

Yes.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I take it the manufacturers do not have an input into his organisation's costs and that this comes directly from the applicant.

Mr. Richard Flynn

They will require our assessments to design the system.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

Approximately what charge applies for the carrying out of an assessment of a site?

Mr. Richard Flynn

As assessment would cost, on average, €800.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I call Ms Shiel who has not yet had an opportunity to speak.

Ms Siobhan Shiel

I wish to address some of the points raised by Deputy Scanlon. I am one of the listed site assessors for County Sligo. As Mr. Flynn has probably said, we want to emphasise we are both independent assessors, we are not employed by manufacturers. Our assessment is considered by the planning authority and the environmental section of council and, on the other side, by the manufacturer who must design a system based on our assessment.

I wish to say in defence of the installing of septic tanks, because representatives of the manufacturers are present, we should not forget that there is nothing wrong with a septic tank system. Such analysis is the basis of these site assessments. Deputy Scanlon said that if a trialhole fails, that a site application should not be approved for planning. That is where the EPA site assessment comes into play. If Richard Flynn, any of the independent assessors or I visit a site, the first element we will examine is if the site is suitable for a septic tank system. That requires a high quality site. If the site is not suitable for a septic tank system, we must then assess its suitability for one of preparatory effluent treatment plants and that is how the system works.

An effluent treatment system comprises of two parts. The first part can be manufactured off site. That is what many of the companies involved do. They produce a mechanical system that will treat effluent to a certain level for disposal. The disposal end is the second part of the system. This is where the soil comes into play. The system falls down at this level in that we can have certification for the mechanical side, but getting planning permission to put in this system and installing the percolation area or the soil polishing area is left to the builders, and these are not trained or educated. This is the reason for the horrifying statistic that 50% of systems are failing. It is not because our manufacturers are doing anything particularly wrong or because the systems will not work but because the installation of the second part of this, where one must put this treated effluent into a soil system prior to it going into ground water, is falling down. There is no regulation on that side.

I am listed with Sligo County Council. I am from Mayo and also work with Mayo County Council, which does not have this system in place and falls back on SR6 in its county development plan, although that has changed a little now. The reason it must fall back on the SR6 is that it is the only one in the building regulations. Mayo County Council, therefore, feels obliged to stick with this. That is where this is falling down as well. If I go to a planner after conducting a site assessment and state that the site has failed for a septic tank, essentially that means it is failed for SR6 because SR6 does not cover anything else. The planner is then left with a dilemma. The site assessment states that the site will not work for a septic tank but the assessor has said a proprietary effluent treatment plant will work, provided it and the polishing area are installed properly. The planner will say, "I should be able to grant permission but how can I do it when I cannot be sure that it will be installed properly?" This is where many of these rural planning refusals come into play. The planner and the county council cannot be sure that if they grant permission, this will be installed properly.

Chairman

We will have to conclude. Another meeting is due to start here soon.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

There should be a greater connection between the manufacturers and the installers.

Ms Siobhan Shiel

Yes.

Chairman

I suspect all the products are spot on but the problem is the environment in which they are installed.

Mr. Joe Walsh

At our conference last year we asked members what the biggest problem area was. By and large, they said it was the percolation area, for which nobody or very few companies take responsibility. Part of the problem is that although there is a thorough site assessment and the treatment systems work, if they are not maintained they will not continue to work. In addition, perhaps the right products are not used for percolation areas or the installation is wrong. A great deal of education, training and follow-up is required.

Mr. Frank Cavanagh

This is where we need joined-up thinking, if I may use that term. We talked about septic tanks and many other issues today. The issue with septic tanks is that I could never find anybody in the country, when I was meeting with various engineering bodies, who was prepared to certify performance and durability of a septic tank system. If one installs a septic tank system and one is depending on soil to do the treatment, one must be prepared to give a guarantee of performance and durability. It is a legal requirement under the building regulations; there is a statutory requirement to state that it will not be a public health hazard and will not cause ground water pollution. If somebody designs a septic tank system, they must provide that certification.

We spoke about SR6. This is not, and never was, a legal document. It is purely a guidance document. It is in the guidance on the building regulations but does not have status or standing. It is not in the statutory instrument. Nobody can rely on SR6. If somebody wishes to put his or her head on the block and use SR6, so be it, but it is purely guidance. It is no defence if one is brought to court.

With regard to septic tanks and grants, I would not mention the word "grants" at this stage. Until we have a proper standard in place for treatment systems and proper procedures, grants should not be put on the agenda in any shape or form. I am being straight about this. Many years ago Europe set down clear criteria for treatment plants, which stated that if the treatment product requires more than one visit per year, it is not acceptable. That included desludging. The product had to be sustainable and had to work for a long period of time for the consumer. That has all been dispensed with in this country. Systems are made so small now that many of them require desludging twice or three times a year. That does not come under the criteria.

Somebody must stand back from this and set down standards for what should be considered a proper, safe product. We are at the beginning of this process. Many issues must be sorted out in our industry but we need joined-up thinking because whatever we do must fit in with the Institute of Engineers and the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland regarding certification. They must sign off on compliance. Whatever we do must match their requirements.

Chairman

I must conclude the meeting as we are out of time. Another meeting is scheduled to take place in this room. I thank our guests. They have been most helpful and illuminated many issues. We are due to produce a report in the new year and their input has been helpful. We might refer back to clarify points beforehand but we will give them copies of our report.

Our next meeting is at 3.30 p.m. next Tuesday when the Ombudsman will attend to discuss the waiver system for refuse charges. On the following week the select committee will meet to discuss the motor tax Bill.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.50 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 2 December 2008.