Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Nov 2011

Vol. 211 No. 8

Water Services (Amendment) Bill 2011: Second Stage (Resumed)

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

I, too, welcome the Minister to the House. I welcome the Bill and agree with its provisions. While there is some concern about it, the subject with which it deals should have been dealt with many years ago. Approximately seven or eight years ago, I met the then Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, in my capacity as a member of the IFA. He stated then he would consider introducing a grant to help people experiencing difficulty in rural areas. We allowed the Celtic tiger to pass by but this was not done. Unfortunately, we are not in a position at this point to introduce a grant but it is vital that we protect public health. We do not want to see cryptosporidium in the water in any county, as was the case in Galway some years ago. This created a very serious problem and the council had to draw in water for people.

There has been much scaremongering on this issue in recent months, particularly regarding the introduction of an inspection charge of €300. In these times, €50 is quite a lot of money but its not a significant charge. It covers the owners of septic tanks for five years.

I agree with Senator Keane on the desirability of grant aid for people who encounter serious difficulties, perhaps based on means tests.

I commend the Bill to the House. It has to be implemented because we cannot allow our water resources to deteriorate further. We must put our environment in order.

We are debating what I consider to be an abomination of a Bill which attacks the rural Ireland that the Minister, Deputy Hogan, promised to defend at the many RISE meetings he attended. Since the election, he appears to have forgotten the promises he made to protect the people's interests.

This Bill will create a private army of inspectors who will have greater powers than the Oireachtas. How are Fine Gael Senators and councillors going to explain to their constituents that an army of inspectors and appeals officers, all of whom will be appointed by the EPA with the consent of the Minister, will have the power to enter houses and properties to inspect and monitor waste water treatment systems? The legislation allows them to set up camp for up to a week. They can take photographs of waste treatment systems, instruct residents not to disturb parts of their own premises, use diggers to carry out surveys of the soil and inspect records and other private information relating to waste water treatment systems. While the legislation states that inspectors require the permission of occupiers to enter, it will be an offence for a person to refuse entry to an inspector. I object to any private individual who is not employed by a statutory authority being given power to enter a house. The legislation should give those powers to the local authorities, the EPA or the Department. Who knows what level of political influence will be applied when the Minister's consent is required? This issue needs to be considered in more detail on Committee Stage.

We have already had an extensive debate on the charge and I am not going to rehearse the arguments. How are Fine Gael and the Labour Party Members going to explain to their constituents that they will have to work through all sorts of appeals and upgrading work if they do not comply with the legislation? I regret that the Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy McGinley, is no longer in the House, even though this is not his area of responsibility. How will he tell people in Gweedore, where all the houses are built on top of each other, that they will have to upgrade their tanks and purchase additional land to put in place a new percolation system?

Scaremongering.

It is not scaremongering because if a new system is required and the land is not available——

Scaremongering of the highest order.

They are facts. One will need to buy another site.

If the system needs to be upgraded, a new percolation area will be required. What happens if one cannot afford to buy a percolation area or if the development land is not available? In many parts of counties Meath and Donegal where ribbon developed was permitted, insufficient land is available to upgrade septic tanks. Householders will be unable to do what the Minister is requiring of them.

The proposed new section 70D is a Trojan horse which deals with the sale of premises connected to domestic waste water treatment systems. While the legislation benignly states that owners will not be able to sell their properties if they are not registered, nobody will want to buy a house if its septic tank is not up to scratch because of the risk of inspections or being made upgrade. Any solicitor worth his or her salt will have to advise potential purchasers of rural houses to hire a surveyor to determine whether the waste water treatment system is up to the standards required by the legislation. God love anyone trying to sell a house with a 30 year old septic tank and insufficient land for another percolation area. A buyer would be mad to buy a house in a rural area in such circumstances.

Would the Senator prefer the groundwater to be polluted?

By and large, these septic tanks are not polluting the groundwater.

How does the Senator know?

Most pollution in Ireland comes from local authorities. A considerable number of septic tanks which were built with planning permission and are operating properly are not up to current EPA standards. The owners of these tanks run the risk of being inspected and directed to remediate any problem. These are genuine issues but they can be addressed by the establishment of the grant system several Senators opposite have called for.

I fundamentally object to the principle of giving statutory authority to individuals operating in the private sector. If the Minister can assure me that will not happen, I will be satisfied.

I can satisfy the Senator's concerns.

I hope the Minister can because it is not appropriate for private sector individuals to be given statutory power when they are simply appointed by statutory bodies. That appears to be the case in this legislation.

We will not accept a guillotine on Committee Stage because we are not going to debate the Bill for the sake of it. We intend to study it line by line, as the Constitution requires us to do. It is too important for the guillotine. The way to calm the fears it has generated is to inform people about what it does. That can only be achieved through a full and proper debate in the Parliament of the people.

Ba mhaith liom seasamh páirtí Shinn Féin ar an mBille seo a shoiléiriú. Táimid i gcoinne an Bhille ar chuid mhaith bhunúis agus tiocfaidh mé isteach orthu. Tá go leor ráite ag na Seanadóirí eile a labhair romham agus cé go n-aontaímid go bhfuil géarghá le déanamh cinnte de go bhfuil an caighdeán uisce atá le fáil sa tír seo glan, sílimid go bhfuil go leor imeartais agus cluichíochta ar bun ag an Roinn sa Bhille seo, mar a luaigh an Seanadóir a chuaigh romham ansin. Cé go bhfuil sé le feiceáil i gcorr-áit go bhfuil rian beag de thruailliú á dhéanamh ag na dabhcha séarachais seo, ní hiad na dabhcha séarachais is mó is cúis leis na deacrachtaí uisce atá againn. Is iad na comhairlí contae agus na comhairlí áitiúla is measa ag feidhmiú sa tír ó thaobh cúrsaí séarachais de.

Ní gá ach breathnú ar an sampla i mo cheantar féin, an Cheathrú Rua i gConamara. Tá píopaí leagtha le haghaidh scéime séarachais ar an gCeathrú Rua nach bhfuil ag clúdach ach cuid den bhaile. Tá an fuíollábhar ó na leithris ag dul isteach sna píopaí sin agus tá na píopaí ag dul amach díreach san fharraige agus an truailliú glan ag dul amach inti. Táimid blianta fada ag lorg córas séarachais mar is ceart ar an gCeathrú Rua ach ní bhfuairimid é.

Ní eisceacht í an Cheathrú Rua. Tá cuid mhaith pobal ann ar fud na tíre atá sa chás chéanna, daoine amuigh faoin tuath. Tá sé go breá bheith ag éisteacht le Fianna Fáil ag cur i gcoinne an Bhille ach tá cuid mhaith den mhilleán ar na Rialtais a chuaigh romhainn mar nach ndearnadh an infheistíocht sna ceantair faoin tuath a chuireadh scéimeanna séarachais ar fáil ar fud na tuaithe a bheadh in ann déileáil leis na fadhbanna seo. D'admhaigh Seanadóirí a labhair romham go raibh gá na billiúin a infheistiú sa réimse seo ach ní dhearnadh é.

Níl sé sin maith go leor. Tá na daoine atá ina gcónaí amuigh faoin tuath ag íoc a gcuid cánacha chomh maith le duine ar bith eile. Níl mé cinnte an aontaím leis an phointe seo gur rud tuaithe-cathrach atá i gceist. Is féidir baile beag ar bith a phiocadh ina bhfuil córas séarachais ann cheana féin agus tá na bailte sin scoilte.

Arís, ag dul ar ais chuig baile na Ceathrún Rua, tá leath de mhuintir na Ceathrún Rua ar an gcóras nua séarachais ach níl an leath eile. Cén fáth go mbeadh ar mhuintir na Gleanna Móra atá sa Cheathrú Rua an táille a íoc ar an dabhcha séarachais nuair atá duine éigin atá ina chónaí sa sráidbhaile nach gcaithfidh an táille chéanna a íoc? Tá sé iomlán éagórach, sa bhreis ar an méid atáimid ag íoc cheana féin ó thaobh cánacha, mar a luaigh mo chomhghleacaí an Seanadóir Cullinane romham. Tá daoine ag íoc cánach sa tír seo go gcuirfí seiribhísí poiblí ar fáil ach nílimid á bhfáil. Sa bhreis air sin, tá an Rialtas ag bualadh an muirear sóisialta uilíoch, an universal social charge, i mullach orainn agus tá sé ag dul a chur costais bhreise orainn ó thaobh na dtithe ina bhfuilimid inár gcónaí. Tá táillí breise ar na málaí plaisteacha agus eile agus eile. An duine atá thíos leo siúd i gcónaí ná an duine nach bhfuil a dhóthain ioncaim aige le coinneáil ag imeacht mar atáimid faoi láthair.

Ar an dtaobh eile, d'áirigh mé Seanadóirí ag rá linn nach bhfuil an t-airgead againn le híoc as an gcóras nua. Nílimid ag caint ach ar chúpla milliún leis an údarás uisce, an water authority, seo a chur ar bun. Má mhéadaíonn an Rialtas €50 fá 400,000 dabhcha séarachais, gheobhaidh sé thart ar €2 mhilliún. Tá timpeall ar an méid sin i gceist ag an Aire ó thaobh costas riarthach an údaráis uisce nua seo. Chuir an Rialtas seo síniú le seic ar €750 milliún cúpla seachtain ó shin do shealbhóirí bannaí neamhráthaithe, unguaranteed bondholders, in Anglo Irish Bank. Ansin, tá sé de mhuineál aige casadh timpeall ag muintir na hÉireann agus a rá nach bhfuil aon airgead againn. Níl sin maith go leor agus ní ghlacfaimid leis sin. Tá an Rialtas chun an rud céanna a dhéanamh ó thaobh na nótaí gealltanais, na promissory notes, in Anglo Irish Bank; tá sé ag magadh faoi mhuintir na hÉireann agus ní ghlacfaimid leis.

Caithfidh an Rialtas rud éigin eile a dhéanamh maidir le hinfheistiú sna córais séarachais phoiblí. Ós rud é go bhfhuil mé ar an Dara Céim den iniúchadh seo, ba mhaith liom ceist a chur: cén comparáid atá déanta ag an Roinn leis an mbealach atá an rialachán seo á chur i bhfeidhm i dtíortha eile? Tá samplaí luaite de na Sé Chontae, áit ina bhfuil Sinn Féin, mo pháirtí féin, ag plé leis an Rialtas agus tá córas á chur i bhfeidhm ansin nach bhfuil ag cosaint airgid bhreise ar an cháiníocóir, áit ina bhfuil siad ag fáil desludging uair sa bhliain. Cén fáth nach féidir córas den chineál sin a chur i bhfeidhm anseo? Cén slí ina bhfuil an córas seo á chur i bhfeidhm ar Mhór-roinn na hEorpa. An bhfuil siad ag íoc na dtáillí céanna ansin?

Tá pointe tábhachtach luaite ag an Seanadóir Byrne: cearta an duine príobháidigh in aghaidh chearta an Stáit. In alt amháin sa Bhille, deirtear go bhfuil sé de cheart agam rochtain ar mo chuid talún a dhiúltú do dhuine ach, ar an taobh eile, mura ligim isteach é, táim ag briseadh an dlí. Tá an Rialtas chun coirpigh a dhéanamh de mhuintir na tuaithe má sheasaimid suas dár gcuid cearta. Ba mhaith liom fáil amach dearcadh an Ard Aighne ar an gceist sin.

Tá soiléiriú ag teastáil maidir leis an gceist cén caoi is féidir an táille seo a ardú. Tosnaíonn sé ag €50 ach cén caoi is féidir é a ardú?

Tá go leor ama breise ag teastáil uaim mar táim ag iarraidh pointí a dhéanamh. Ní leor cúig nóiméad leis an méid atá sa Bhille seo a phlé agus is trua go bhfuilimid teoranta don mhéid seo ama. Ní ghlacaim leis go bhfuilimid ag cur deiridh leis seo. Tá gá le tacaíocht a thabhairt do dhaoine má tá retrofitting le déanamh do septic tanks. Níl sé d'acmhainn ag daoine atá amuigh ansin faoi láthair. Níl a fhios agam cén pláinéad ar a bhfuil an Rialtas ina chónaí ach an dream lena bhuailim, níl an t-airgead acusan le dul ag íoc as septic tanks nó as córas nua. Níl sé sách maith ar chor ar bith go mbeadh an Rialtas ag iarraidh an rud seo a bhrú chun cinn in aghaidh thoil na ndaoine.

Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 12 Members being present.

As there are no Opposition Members present, we will ask the Minister to reply.

I thank all the Senators who have participated in the debate and I will address some of the issues raised in their contributions.

Senators Brian Ó Domhnaill and Thomas Byrne talked about an army of inspectors descending on people's private property. What I am doing in this legislation is no different from what Fianna Fáil did with the building energy regulations scheme, where it provided for private inspection of the energy performance of buildings. That is allowed. The national car tests are private inspections carried out on motor cars. Several local authorities, including that in Donegal, have private panels for site assessment for planning purposes.

On a point of order——

On a point of order, will the Fianna Fáil Members who indicated their intention to speak be allowed to come in after the Minister's contribution?

No, I went to the list and the Leader of the House proposed——

—— that I move to the Minister.

That is appalling because many Fianna Fáil Members have indicated their intention to speak.

They had prepared contributions.

I object because Members were told the debate on the Bill would extend until 2.30 p.m.

If the Minister would like to continue——

The debate will now be guillotined. Is that what Members are being told?

Please respect the Chair.

It is not. The Senator should, please, resume his seat.

I was present——

This is a disgrace. No wonder the Minister is trying to hoodwink Members.

I should have been called, as I was present and my name was on the list.

The manner in which the Bill was introduced was an attempt to hoodwink the people.

The Senator should, please, resume his seat.

This is an outrageous attack on democracy and the Acting Chairman should not allow herself to be a part of it.

The Senator should, please, resume his seat.

The Acting Chairman should not allow herself to be part of an operation to stifle debate in the House.

I ask the Senator to resume his seat.

The Acting Chairman should not be part of this operation——

Will the Senator, please, resume his seat?

——to stifle debate in the House. It is outrageous.

Is the debate on the Bill being guillotined? This is an attack on democracy and rural Ireland. The Members opposite should be ashamed of themselves.

I ask the Senator to resume his seat.

It is absolutely disgraceful.

Please respect the Chair.

I cannot believe it.

This is a trick of the highest order in a Parliament of the people——

After the quorum was called, Fianna Fáil Members were not present.

——in which Members are anxious to debate the issues involved in this legislation.

There was no one in the House on the opposite side.

On a point of order——

On a point of order, Senator O'Sullivan was in the House. Moreover, I had offered to speak before the Minister stood up.

Excuse me. Senator O'Sullivan was in the Press Gallery.

I had offered to speak. I got to my feet but was not allowed to speak.

The Senator was not in the House and was, therefore, not counted in seeking a quorum. I asked whether there were speakers.

With the greatest of respect to the Acting Chairman, I remained in the Press Gallery while a quorum was being sought. I was in my seat before she asked the Minister to speak.

I asked whether there were speakers.

My name was on the list.

——that if there were no speakers——

—— I should ask the Minister to speak. The Minister should continue.

Acting Chairman——

Under the Water Services Act 2007——

Sorry, Acting Chairman——

On a point of order, can Members show some respect for the Minister by allowing him to speak?

Government Members should show some respect for the House.

They are respecting it. That is exactly what they are doing.

Will the Senator, please, resume her seat?

This is a point of order.

The smile on the face of the Leader of the House says it all.

It is a point of order.

I ask all Senators to resume their seats.

The smile on the face of the Leader says it all.

Will the Senators, please, resume their seats?

A trick has been accomplished——

The Members opposite were not present.

——and, unfortunately, the Acting Chairman appears to have been complicit in it.

I am still trying to raise a point of order.

On a point of order——

The Acting Chairman should remove herself from the Chair.

I am still trying to raise a point of order.

Will the Senators, please, resume their seats?

On a point of order——

Senator Wilson, on a point of order.

I thank the Acting Chairman. To restore calm, I understand from two of my colleagues who had indicated they wished to speak that they were present in the Chamber but the Acting Chairman called the Minister.

They were not present.

I respect each Member of the House, including the Acting Chairman, and people can make mistakes. However, my clear understanding from two of my colleagues is that their names were on the list supplied to the Chair and they had indicated they wished to speak on the Bill.

They were not present.

On a point of order, I was here.

The Senator was in the Press Gallery.

Consequently, I respectfully request that they be facilitated in so doing.

I respect what the Senator has said. I did ask whether there were speakers. I had a list and the speakers included were not present. It was then proposed by the Leader of the House that I move immediately to the Minister, which is what I did. I invite the Minister to speak. The record will clearly show——-

I will not accept what the Acting Chairman said. With the greatest of respect to the Minister, whom I respect, I have never been as agitated in making a point of order since I was first elected to the House. Am I invisible? I remained in the Press Gallery in order that it would be convenient for a recall. I was sitting in my chair before the Acting Chairman addressed the Chamber. I am not invisible and I am not telling lies.

I can confirm that. I had offered to speak before the Minister rose, but I was not allowed to speak.

I was on my feet the minute the Acting Chairman called the Minister. With all due respect, I was standing.

I seek the adjournment of the House. Fianna Fáil does not accept the Chair's ruling.

The smile on the Leader's face says it all.

They want to get away with it.

Is that what the record will show?

I am suspending the sitting for five minutes and will ask the Cathaoirleach to restore order.

Sitting suspended at 2.15 p.m. and resumed at 2.25 p.m.

I call the Minister.

With all due respect——

Is this a point of order?

It is a point of order. Two members of our party had indicated to speak before the Minister was called, as the Member who was in the Chair will confirm. Two of our members have been denied the right to speak on Second Stage of a very important Bill. I ask for the Cathaoirleach's ruling on this situation because I believe a genuine error was made by the Acting Chairman. Two, in fact three, of our members had offered to speak and were present in the Chamber. We are not going to permit this, where a Bill is rushed through and a Minister is called in to try to nobble and quieten our Members who are listed to speak and had offered to do so. We are not going to accept it and they must be offered the opportunity to speak on this Bill.

The Acting Chairman has reported to me. The Acting Chairman did not try to nobble anybody——

I said a genuine error had been made.

The Acting Chairman did not try to nobble anybody.

I did not use that phrase. I said a genuine error had beenmade.

She called the Minister because there was no other speaker offering at the time. There were 11 Members in the House when the quorum was called but nobody was offering to speak. I have made a ruling on it. I am going with the Acting Chairman and I call on the Minister to respond.

With respect, I was on my feet before the Minister stood.

On a point of order, I also want to record that the Minister and the Leader of the House had a smile at each other as this was transpiring. That certainly adds to the perception of wrongdoing.

I have made a ruling on it. I call Senator Wilson.

On a point of order, I accept the Cathaoirleach's ruling. I respect this House and I accept that the Acting Chairman may not have noticed the two colleagues who indicated. However, I want to put it on the record of the House that they were here, they did indicate, which is my clear understanding, and they were listed to speak. In good faith, having been in the Chair myself on many occasions when quorums were called, I always allowed sufficient time for people to get back into the House.

Members are criticising our colleague for calling a quorum. He is quite entitled to call a quorum under the Standing Orders of this House and it is a long-standing precedent that time would be given to colleagues to re-enter the Chamber. I want to put it on the record of the House that it is my clear understanding — I believe my colleagues — that they were here and had indicated, as well as having been mentioned on a list that is in front of the Cathaoirleach. None the less, I accept the Cathaoirleach's ruling.

Thank you. I can only say that I take in good faith everything the Whip has said but the Acting Chairman has reported to me and I have to back the Acting Chairman in this case. I have made my ruling. I call on the Minister.

On a point of order, the Cathaoirleach or the Acting Chairman made no mention of the list of speakers. The list of speakers may not be mentioned in Standing Orders but the list of speakers——

The list of speakers——

Apart from the fact that my colleagues pointed out that they did indicate, the list of speakers is part and parcel of the practice of parliamentary procedure in this House.

The list of speakers and the speakers present are two different things.

Apart from the fact my colleagues had indicated they wished to speak, nothing was made of the list of speakers. Is that list of speakers to be totally disregarded in the future?

As the Senator well knows, a list of speakers and the speakers present in the House are two different things. I call Senator O'Sullivan.

I, too, totally respect the Cathaoirleach's judgment on this and I totally accept that the Acting Chairman did not act in any biased way. However, Members on the other side of the House are saying I was not in the Chamber. I was in the Chamber before the Acting Chairman resumed business. That is it.

I call on the Minister to reply.

As I was saying, I want to reply to a number of matters and points of view that were raised by speakers, for which I thank all sides of the House. To deal with the issues raised by Senators Ó Domhnaill and Byrne in regard to the army of inspectors, this is no different from the Dog Breeding Establishments Act, which allowed people from the private sector to go onto premises and which the Senators voted for in 2010. It is no different from the private people who are set up as panels by local authorities for planning purposes and no different than the building energy regulation scheme which allows for private people to go onto premises. The notion that they have——

They have sweeping powers.

Yes. The Government of which the Senator was a member did the very same thing and adopted the same powers for which he is now criticising me.

If people will not allow an inspector onto their land, the Minister is criminalising them.

The Dog Breeding Establishments Bill was passed only last week.

In case Senator Byrne did not notice, the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill was passed in 2010 and he voted for it. It never ceases to amaze me how some Members of the previous Government and their newly elected colleagues can conveniently forget the commitments that were made and that they made. Allow me to quote from the renewed programme for Government agreed between Fianna Fáil and the Green Party on 10 October 2009. On page 24 of that document, it states: "We will introduce a scheme for the licensing and inspection of septic tanks and wastewater treatment systems." Other Members have——

On a point of order, I am reluctant to interrupt and I know the Minister is trying to make a political point but the record also shows that the then Minister also said that he would engage in widespread public consultation on the issue.

That is not a point of order.

It is, in that the Minister is being selective in his quotes.

That is not a point of order.

A number of Members have advocated that I should do nothing on this. As an Oireachtas Member, I cannot advocate the breaking of European law. This goes back to October 2009 when the then Minister had an opportunity to do something about a European Court of Justice judgment but did nothing.

He was working on it and he was not going to let Europe dictate.

Does the Senator want to see the file?

How many discussions did the Minister have with the Commission?

I got the results.

Debate adjourned.
Business of Seanad

According to the order of the House, the debate was due to conclude at 2.30 p.m. Does the Leader intend to extend the time for the Minister to complete his reply?

I propose that the time for the Minister to reply be extended. I am sure the Minister will be completed in five minutes, if he is allowed.

Is that agreed?

Question put: "That the time for the Minister to reply on Second Stage be extended."
The Seanad divided by electronic means.

Under Standing Order 63, I seek a manual vote.

Question again put: "That the time for the Minister to reply on Second Stage be extended."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 12.

  • Bacik, Ivana.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Brennan, Terry.
  • Burke, Colm.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Comiskey, Michael.
  • Conway, Martin.
  • Crown, John.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • D’Arcy, Jim.
  • D’Arcy, Michael.
  • Gilroy, John.
  • Harte, Jimmy.
  • Healy Eames, Fidelma.
  • Heffernan, James.
  • Henry, Imelda.
  • Keane, Cáit.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Landy, Denis.
  • Moloney, Marie.
  • Moran, Mary.
  • Mulcahy, Tony.
  • Mullins, Michael.
  • Noone, Catherine.
  • O’Neill, Pat.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • van Turnhout, Jillian.
  • Whelan, John.

Níl

  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Cullinane, David.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Mooney, Paschal.
  • Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
  • Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
  • Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
  • O’Brien, Darragh.
  • O’Donovan, Denis.
  • O’Sullivan, Ned.
  • Walsh, Jim.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Mary Moran; Níl, Senators Ned O’Sullivan and Diarmuid Wilson.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share