I ask for the committee's co-operation until the Chairman resumes and that we move the meeting on. Does anybody else want to speak on the amendments?
Water Services (Amendment) Bill 2011: Committee Stage (Resumed)
To provide clarification for Deputy Mattie McGrath where he asked what happens if fines are not paid, the law takes its course in the collection of fines in the same way as with any legislation.
That was precisely my point. There is imprisonment so.
The law takes its course.
That gives - I will not say "lie" - the untruth to what the Minister has been peddling.
What has been peddled?
The Minister has been stating there are no prison sentences. I had to ask four times to get that out of the Minister.
Deputy Mattie McGrath said that. I am not second guessing a judge.
I asked this, both in my speech in the Dáil and here today. This is the fourth time I have asked it. The Minister stated quite clearly today that there was no imprisonment in this Bill.
Deputy Mattie McGrath has been answered.
The Minister has been peddling untruths all morning. That is disgusting. This Bill is a shame. A moment ago, the Government voted down a reasonable suggestion to bring the reasonable persons who understand this in to give us standards on which we can make judgments on this Bill. We do not have any standard.
The Minister is telling us now also of the 1964 standards, the 1984 standards and the 1998 standards, when he knows it is not true. It will be the most recent standards that apply under the Bill. We all know that. He cannot be pulling the wool over our eyes altogether.
Deputy Mattie McGrath has made his point.
I have, but I am unhappy. The Minister is peddling untruths.
This is about the issue of standards. The Department issued a regulatory impact analysis or screening report. It states:
Article 4 of the Directive requires Member States to take necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health or without using processes or methods which could harm the environment.
Article 8 requires Member States to take necessary measures to ensure that any holder of waste has it handled by a public or private waste collector or recovers or disposes of it himself in accordance with the provisions of the Directive.
The Directive states that the essential objective of all provisions relating to waste management should be the protection of human health and the environment against harmful effects caused by the collection, transport, treatment, storage and tipping of waste.
The Directive requires, inter alia, that establishments carrying out their own waste disposal at the place of production should be subject to appropriate periodic inspection by the competent authorities.
It does not say anything about a representative standard. On Part H, drainage and waste water disposal, of the building regulations, the report states, "Part H of the Building Regulations sets out the requirements for Drainage and Waste Water Disposal and includes requirements for septic tanks and other on-site wastewater treatment systems", and - bear in mind, this applies to all systems - "Following a public consultation process, Part H was revised in 2010 to call up the EPA's 2009 Code of Practice". It states that all waste disposal systems must comply with the EPA's 2009 code of practice. It states:
A new European Standard for small wastewater treatment plants came into force on 1st July 2009. This Standard was adopted by the European Standards Committee (CEN) and transposed in Ireland by the NSAI as I.S. EN 12566-3:2005. The new standard specifies requirements, test methods, marking and evaluation of conformity for packaged and/or site-assembled domestic wastewater treatment plants used for the treatment of raw domestic sewage and serving populations up to 50 inhabitants. The evolving requirement for new on-site wastewater treatment systems to comply with the standard and the recommended performance levels for treatment systems which have been determined by the Irish Agrément Board has been brought to the attention of Local Authorities by Circular Letters issued by the Department in November 2006 and in January 2008 ... The EPA published a Wastewater Treatment Manual on treatment systems for single houses in 2000 to assist planning authorities, developers, system manufacturers and designers, system installers and system operators to deal with the complexities of on-site systems.
That has nothing to do with it.
Please allow me to finish.
That is for new developments.
It is not.
The document continues:
A review of the manual, following consultation with major stakeholders, including an extensive public consultation process, was finalised in 2009 and the updated Code of Practice was published in October 2009.
The purpose of the new Code of Practice is to provide guidance on the provision of wastewater treatment and disposal systems for new single houses.
I acknowledge that the guidelines are for new houses, but there is a punchline at the bottom of the document which continues:
The purpose of the new Code of Practice is to provide guidance on the provision of wastewater treatment and disposal systems for new single houses. Its key messages are;
The importance of proper site assessment, taking account of not only local conditions specific to the proposed site but also of wider experience in the area, patterns of development, provisions of the development plan and other policies;
The need for the design of on-site wastewater disposal systems to be specific to local conditions;
The need for follow-through by developers, homeowners and supervisory authorities to ensure that installation, commissioning and maintenance are as per design and attendant recommendations and conditions.
The Code, which was prepared having regard to the latest standards and guidelines, will assist planning authorities, builders, system manufacturers, system designers, system installers and system operators to deal with the complexities of on-site systems for single houses. It provides guidance on;
An assessment methodology to determine site suitability for on-site wastewater treatment systems and to identify minimum environmental protection requirements;
A methodology to select suitable wastewater treatment systems for sites in un-sewered rural areas;
Information on the design and installation of septic tank systems, filter systems, packaged treatment systems and tertiary treatment systems and maintenance requirements.
In January 2010, the Department issued Circular PSSP 1/10 to all planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála regarding implementation of the new Code of Practice. It is considered that implementation of the new Code for new developments requiring the use of septic tanks and other on-site waste water treatment systems will ensure that such developments meet the requirements of the Waste Directive, as long as a system requiring an on-going process of correct operation, maintenance, inspection and de-sludging is implemented.
Which amendment is the Deputy addressing, if he is not addressing the entire Bill?
I am addressing the amendment moved by the Minister.
Is it amendment No. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 or 25?
The document continues: "However, the Code of Practice does not directly address the issue of the existing stock of on-site treatment systems serving un-sewered properties". The document is great in informing me about new houses. However, layman's logic raises two issues. First, if these elements are required to supply clean water to new houses, why is the same not required in respect of old houses? Second, nowhere in the document is the magic standard set out. The Minister claims it is the standard applied when planning permission was granted. If that is true, all houses built prior to 1964 are outside the loop and their owners can do what they like because there was no planning in that era.
If an inspector finds a flaw with a system, he or she will require it to be replaced and the new system will be subject to the code of practice.
Until the Minister shows me in writing where it does not apply, I will not believe him.
That is where the Deputy is wrong.
The Minister is codding himself, but he is not codding me.
I am not.
The Minister will respond to Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív presently.
Will the Minister ensure the data collected as part of the registration process are made accessible to local authorities for other purposes, for example, the register of electors? We all know how the Data Commissioner interprets the law where specific provision is not made. It makes sense to use accurate records of who resides in which house for other purposes. Will the Minister amend the legislation to allow for positive affirmation of the regulations before the House or the committee in order that we can debate the standards being proposed? The legislation providing for the disposal of Aer Lingus sets a precedent for such a measure. As the then Minister for Transport, Séamus Brennan, was unable to address certain issues when that legislation was brought before the House, he introduced an amendment requiring that a motion be approved by the House prior to the disposal of any share in the company. This allowed us to debate formally outstanding issues covered in regulations introduced subsequent to the primary legislation. Such an approach would allow us to get around many of the issues raised regarding standards and facilitate progress on the Bill.
On the plan to introduce charges for water consumption for domestic purposes, I understand people living in urban areas will be charged for water going in and out, whereas those living in rural areas will only be charged for water going in. If we are looking for equality of treatment, we will also have to charge people living in rural areas for water going out.
I am disappointed that the Opposition motion has not been accepted. We are discussing a total unknown, given that the Minister and the EPA will have powers to make regulations regarding maintenance, performance and standards and other such consequential matters as deemed appropriate. We do not know what these regulations will involve and will not have an opportunity to hear from the EPA or city and county managers about their likely content.
I referred to the pre-1964 house I once rented. The septic tank was not located an adequate distance from the rear of the house. Will regulations cover the distance of the septic tank from a house or neighbouring dwellings and the quality of water or effluent at the end of the treatment process? What standards will apply for maintenance and de-sludging? If the standards are strict, a considerable number of septic tanks will not be able to meet them.
On the Minister's comment on whether a septic tank was working, I do not accept that is going to be the case because there is no way a septic tank built prior to 1964 or 1994 will pass. We are discussing the Bill in a vacuum. If septic tanks are going to fail to meet the standards, a grants scheme will be required. It appears the penalties will be introduced in the absence of a mechanism to enable rural dwellers to upgrade their systems. As the Minister will be aware, many rural dwellers will simply be unable to pay.
They will go to jail.
They are not on the edge; they have gone over it.
I cannot understand why we are discussing these matters in a vacuum. We are in a state of chaos. The Bill has been withdrawn from the Oireachtas, apart from this committee, because of the opposition to it from a number the Minister's colleagues in Fine Gael and the Labour Party. This issue is scaring people in rural Ireland. It is a cloak and dagger issue masked in political speak. I had to ask four times before the Minister said nobody would go to prison. However, people will go to prison because they will be fined and they will not be able to pay the fines. As Deputy Brian Stanley said, many houses were built on a quarter or an eight of an acre of land and now it is necessary to have 0.6 of an acre to have a satisfactory one-off site in rural Ireland. The length of percolation piping required in most cases is 80 linear metres. Therefore, if people do not have the space, they cannot do it. This measure is unworkable and the Minister keeps telling us that the standards applied from 1964 and 1984 will apply. He told me on radio that the 1984 standards would apply. I know my septic tank is not perfect because it was built in 1984. I keep it serviced which is enormously costly, but it does not cost me much because I can do it myself.
The legislation is nonsensical. If it came from the previous Minister, I would be frustrated, but I would understand it. However, the Minister is from the country and should understand. Schemes in towns and cities have been funded at huge expense, while the State has also hugely funded farmers under the waste management scheme. They accepted it and have become cleaner than clean, but who is policing the local authorities? In Newcastle, Golden and thousands of other villages people have tanks little bigger that mine and no percolation area. They have material piped to the river. That is happening up and down the country. If another citizen or I wants to make a complaint about a town system, we must complain to the EPA which will notify the county council to inquire. It is a joke and a farce. They are making an ass of the law and this law will be a jennet if it is passed. A jennet is a cross between a mule and an ass. I am surprised and appalled by the Minister. I will leave this meeting shortly because I cannot put up with any more of this. It is nonsensical. It is unbelievable and the Minister knows it, although his officials might not.
I would like an answer to the questions I asked the Minister before the division. If an inspector is of the opinion that a domestic wastewater treatment system is likely to pose a hazard to a deep well pump in an urban dweller's yard, does he or she decide that remedial works must be place? In some cases, the deep well can be within 100 m or 200 m of the septic tank. That is why there is a genuine fear among rural dwellers.
The big contention centres on the grant. Will the Minister comment on whether a grant system will be put in place? I was shocked at lunchtime when I was contacted by a constituent regarding his brother who is working in the United States because there is no employment available here. The local authority is requesting a PPS number for him to renew his driving licence, something he has done for the past 12 years since he emigrated. He is being forced to come home because he cannot acquire the licence through a family member.
We are dealing with water services.
When a person is registering a septic tank, will he or she be required to have a PPS number? There are people with homes in Ireland but who have emigrated and they will have to comply with the legislation. They may not have PPS numbers. Perhaps we might have clarity on these two issues.
Our proposal that the EPA and other groups be invited to appear before the committee was not accepted. I thought the idea of this legislation was to guarantee the quality of the water supply. That is important and we should go to the ends of the Earth to make it happen, but the Minister must be practical and inform people. Why do the Minister and Government representatives on the committee not want the EPA to appear before the committee to explain stuff to us?
The Minister will have heard the phrase, "You cannot get blood out of a stone". If he criminalises people, the blood will not flow any quicker from the stone because there is none in it. However, he will achieve one thing. Deputy Mattie McGrath asked what would happen if a fine was not paid. The Minister will cost the State €1,000 a week for every person imprisoned. Would it not be better to put that money towards securing the water supply rather than going through this charade?
I call the Minister to sum up on the amendments.
I would love to be able to sum up on them, but much of the summing up has nothing to do with the amendments which deal with registration.
Deputy Denis Naughten referred to data sharing. The household charge process will pick up a lot of data for the register of electors and other items. The regulations will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and can be subject to discussion or annulled within 21 days.
The Minister knows the practicalities involved in that regard.
I have seen it happen before. There are no plans to charge for water going in or out for a person providing his or her own well and water supply. Are you happy with this, Deputy Ó Cuív?
Will you confirm that the charge for water in the city-----
I am talking about private rural dwellers.
It would be helpful to everybody if Deputy Eamon Ó Cuív spoke through the Chair.
The Minister asked me a question and should not have done so. He should have spoken through the Chair. I got sucked in. I am sorry.
My understanding is that Deputy Denis Naughten has said that in urban Ireland a water out charge will be included, but I always understood it was just a water charge and, therefore, that if one was charged so much in Dublin, it would be the exact same water charge, even if one had a septic tank and a water out system in rural Ireland. In other words, one is only paying for the water going in, not for the water going out. When I was in government, all of the discussion documents referred to a water charge, not a water in or water out charge. It is news to me and other Deputies that the Government is contemplating such a charge. It will be called a water charge, but it will also cover the cost of disposal if done by a State body or a local authority. Will the Minister clarify whether Deputy Denis Naughten is correct? Will those connected to the public sewer pay both for the water and the cost of treating the water that comes out at the far end of the system?
The Government has no plans to introduce a water in and water out charge. Water charges by meter and consumption will be the subject of a separate debate which we will have in two years. The Deputy is trying to put the frighteners on people, which is his own business, but I am trying to deal with the practicalities and the facts.
Deputy James Bannon asked a few hypothetical questions about distances from wells and so on. I am not going to get into answering such questions, as I cannot answer hypothetical questions. I suggested I would consider at the end of the inspection process at the end of 2013 the question of providing financial assistance where significant works were required based on the small number of inspections carried out. We will establish if there is such a requirement. Therefore, I am not ruling it out.
The questions are not hypothetical. I disagree with you. The questions were posed by genuine-----
The Deputy should speak through the Chair.
I cannot answer the Deputy's questions. As I am not an engineer, I cannot answer a technical engineering question.
PPS numbers will not be required. Deputy Flanagan referred to the need to be practical. We lost a European Court of Justice case in 2009 and have negotiated a risk-based assessment system, not a universal inspection one, which during the summer he and others decided we should have. We have a risk-based system under the 2007 Act introduced by Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív and his party in government which provides for fines of up to €15 million and a period of up to five years in prison, of which Deputy Mattie McGrath voted in favour.
Is the Minister sure of that?
I am. The difference with this approach is that we have a monitoring and inspection regime and a risk-based approach, particularly in places where there are rivers, streams and lakes, which is what is happening under the local authority system anyway. The EPA-----
What about the EPA? Why does the Minister not invite it?
The EPA will draw up the guidelines for the implementation of policy, as it is doing now. It will do so on the basis of the legislation we will enact. It does not know what guidelines to draw up until the Houses of the Oireachtas have approved the legislation.
It is funny that regulation should be mentioned.
May I finish, Chairman?
On the birds and habitats-----
Allow the Minister to speak without interruption and I will come back to the Deputy.
If there is contamination relating to some of the hypothetical issues Deputy Stanley mentioned, it is covered under the 2007 Act. If damage is being done to public health by an individual resulting in neighbouring properties being damaged, it is covered under the 2007 Act.
That is a different issue.
All we are asked to do in this legislation is to ensure there is no risk to public health or the environment. That is what the judgment of the European Court of Justice requires. The standards to be applied will be based on that fact. The pre-1963 properties will be picked up on the basis of whether there is damage to the environment or public health.
Before I call Deputy Stanley, to be followed by Deputies Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan and Ó Cuív, we have been debating these amendments-----
I did not get one answer from the Minister. I asked about local authorities.
The Minister-----
I got no answers.
-----will come back to the Deputy.
It is not right that I got no answers. The local authorities are the biggest polluters. I will not co-operate.
I ask for the member's co-operation.
I will not co-operate because I got no answer. It is like what was said about the former Taoiseach, Mr. Bertie Ahern, that it is like hitting a ball against a haystack. It is like hitting against a silage bay.
If the Deputy does not co-operate-----
I will not co-operate because I have got no answers.
I will suspend the meeting if the Deputy does not co-operate.
I got no answers and I want them. I have failed to get them four times when I asked about the fines. The Minister failed to answer me when I asked him who is policing-----
I will take three more speakers and then revert to the Minister.
I got no answers to my questions.
I call Deputy Stanley.
I got no answers. What is the point of being here if I get no answers?
In order to be helpful to Deputy Mattie McGrath, let me say there has been substantial investment over many years under the water services programme to deal with local authorities.
I am aware of that.
South Tipperary County Council did not submit to the Department anything about the Golden sewerage scheme.
Of course we did.
No, it did not.
The Minister, without interruption.
That is another untruth. The Minister should ask Deputy Tom Hayes.
May I clarify it for the Deputy?
The Minister may.
It is covered by the rural water programme which is a matter for South Tipperary County Council. It is not covered by the Department.
The Minister is saying he has nothing to do with it and is passing the buck again. There are many other towns and villages.
It is the local authority's problem and not ours. Over the years there has been substantial investment by successive governments in water and sewerage services, which will continue.
Who polices the local authorities, which are polluting the rivers in many villages in every county?
The EPA.
If one rings the EPA, it will get the local authority to go out and inspect it. Is that positive action?
It must then submit its proposals for a major scheme to the Department.
Meanwhile the rivers are being polluted.
How does the Deputy expect to get answers if he will not listen when the Minister gives them? He is continually interrupting.
If I got the answers, I would not interrupt.
The Deputy should have some basic manners and let the Minister finish. He should not interrupt the Minister when he is answering. He did not interrupt the Deputy when he was speaking.
I thank the Deputy for his co-operation.
I would like the answers.
Deputy Ó Cuív will be very familiar with section 70 of the Water Services Act 2007, which places a duty of care on owners to ensure their treatment systems do not cause a risk to human health or the environment or a nuisance through odours. Non-compliance with the duty of care provisions is an offence and extensive powers of inspection and enforcement are provided to water services authorities to facilitate implementation of those provisions. Galway County Council undertakes surveys of septic tanks and on-site waste water treatment systems where serious water quality issues have been identified. In the past two years, surveys have included septic tanks and oil tanks in the catchment area of the source of the Carraroe public water supply. This was carried out following an oil leak within the catchment area, an area with which the Deputy will be very familiar, and in response to a direction from the EPA. Septic tanks in the catchment area of the source of the Tully-Tullycross public water supply scheme were surveyed in response to an EPA audit. Surveys of septic tanks, farmyards and discharges from businesses to identify risks in the catchment areas discharging into designated shellfish areas in Clarinbridge Bay and Killary Harbour were also carried out by Galway County Council. These were required in order to implement the pollution reduction plans prepared under the 2006 quality of shellfish water regulations, with which the Deputy will be very familiar. There were surveys of septic tanks and farmyards in catchment areas of bathing waters, including An Trá Mór in Inveran and Mannin Bay beach, where monitoring identified contamination of streams discharging into the bay. Galway County Council is implementing what the Government, of which Deputy Ó Cuív was a member, enshrined into legislation in 2007.
It does it in a way that has not-----
It is hypocrisy.
No, it was not-----
Deputy Stanley is next.
The Minister listed the existing legislation dealing with pollution. We all know about that. However, we are dealing with amendments to a Bill to deal with treatment systems for domestic dwellings. Section 70L provides for regulations. We have no way of knowing what the regulations will be. I would be surprised if those regulations did not contain clauses regarding distance of septic tanks from neighbouring dwellings, the dwellings they serve, wells, water courses, the quality of effluents and a maintenance regime setting out clearly what is required. The problem is that we are dealing with a Bill without knowing what is coming on the back of it. We need to know that before we proceed further.
What is going on here today is a charade. This is the second time I have been in this room dealing with amendments to a Bill. The previous Bill went through relatively easily. Whereas most of our amendments were rejected, we accepted that. It is democracy. What is happening here today is a charade. I never witnessed anything like this when I worked on a local authority. I have sat on local authority committees where we dealt with policy and different things. While we always knew what we were dealing with here, it is absolutely ludicrous to put in place legislation that will govern 460,000 households, representing approximately one third of the population, without knowing exactly what will come with it.
The Minister has said that it will all be all right and we will get to see the regulations and get to discuss them. However, I am afraid the Government does not have a good record in this regard. The regulations for the birds and habitats directive were signed into law by statutory instrument. I attempted to have them debated on the floor of the Dáil but was refused. Will the same thing happen in this case?
There was mention of local authorities polluting. I was involved in an incident in which I reported my local authority for polluting a fish sanctuary. The person responsible for the pollution was sent out by the EPA to investigate it, which is a farce. It is a pity we would not take care of that first.
We have strayed a long way from the subject matter of amendment No. 19. Is Deputy Mattie McGrath is pressing the amendment?
I want to speak at this point. I have something very germane to say.
The Deputy already spoke at length. I ask him to be brief.
We all know the saying, "marry in haste and regret at leisure". We are introducing a law that will affect the daily lives of people. The Minister has not grasped the enormity of the catastrophe that could face ordinary people from this law. He mentioned all sorts of areas in my constituency. In reality none of that caused any difficulty to people on the ground. As he is obliged to do, the Minister issued a regulatory impact analysis with the Bill. I quote from his own analysis.
The Deputy already quoted it.
I will quote another bit for the Minister because it is obvious he has not read it.
The Deputy is repeating now.
I am not repeating.
He has made these points already.
No, I have not made this point because I am reading another bit of the Minister's analysis into the record.
At present there are no national performance standards or monitoring arrangements for the estimated 441,000 septic tanks [a figure the Department gave] and other on-site waste water treatment systems serving unsewered properties in Ireland. Research carried out as part of the preparation of the River Basin Management Plans estimated that as many as 25,000 septic tanks have the potential to impact on groundwaters and 120,000 have the potential to impact on surface waters, due to their location in vulnerable areas.
2. Judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ)
On 29 October 2009, the ECJ ruled against Ireland in relation to septic tanks and other on-site wastewater treatment systems. The Court found that by failing to adopt the necessary legislation to comply with Articles 4 and 8 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (The Waste Directive) as regards domestic waste waters disposed of in the countryside through septic tanks and other individual waste water treatment systems, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
3. Legislative Deficit
The ECJ ruling highlights deficiencies in the existing Irish legislation. It is clear that the existing legal framework dealing with septic tanks and other on-site waste water treatment systems (details below), does not suffice to satisfy the requirements of the Waste Directive and to protect human health and the environment. To address the ruling, it is necessary to bring forward legislation which will provide for the setting of standards for the performance and operation of all septic tanks and similar on-site wastewater treatment systems. The legislation will also provide for the inspection of the performance of such treatment systems and will set out the responsibilities of households served by those systems, including requirements to carry out remedial actions where necessary.
According to the Minister's document there are no standards and the legislation will provide for the setting of the standards for performance and operation of all septic tanks and similar on-site waste water treatment systems. Before we buy this pig in a poke will somebody tell us the standards to be applied so we know before we sign this into law what the implications will be for the ordinary people of Ireland?
If the rural Government Deputies want to treat me with disdain and vote us down they have the power to do so, but I warn them that I have seen it all before - it is one advantage of being here - and when the EPA and others involved with standards examine this and the waste water directives, a very high standard will be set and most older septic tank systems will not pass. When this happens, it will bite you all in the bum. You will then know that when I was here I was doing you a favour. If we all just took a deep breath, gave the Minister time over Christmas to lay out the standards for us and tell us what we are buying in this poke, and returned to pass the legislation after Christmas when we know exactly what we are passing, it would save the Government from itself, because the Government is running hara-kiri into this one. It seems to have made it a matter of pride rather than practice to try to ram this through because it thinks it can do so against us. However, it is not us who will get hurt in this situation, it is the Government Deputies. I will be able to tell the people of rural Ireland that I warned the Government about the consequences of the directive but it did not take my advice.
Is Deputy McGrath pressing the amendment?
Will the Minister have an opportunity to answer my questions?
The Minister has already answered.
He has not answered.
The Minister has not answered the question. He has refused to answer again.
Excuse me-----
No, excuse me, he has not answered.
We have been debating this issue for a number of hours.
We do not even know what we are debating.
You had a motion on it and the Minister answered.
I am saying that the Minister is not answering.
On a point of order, did the Chairman make a ruling on what happens when the Deputy who tabled an amendment is not here?
Deputy Ciarán Lynch resumed the Chair.
No. The ruling was that if Deputy Murphy was present she would have to move her amendment but a substitute can do so in compliance with Standing Orders.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Collins, Niall.
- Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’.
- Murphy, Catherine.
Níl
- Bannon, James.
- Coonan, Noel.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- Nash, Gerald.
- O’Donovan, Patrick.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 6, to delete lines 41 to 51 and in page 7, to delete lines 1 to 14.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 6, to delete lines 46 to 48.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 6, to delete lines 46 to 48 and substitute the following:
"(12) A person who fails to comply with a request under subsection (11) within 10 days, shall receive a warning notification and must produce within 90 days.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 6, line 47, to delete "within 10 days," and substitute "within 20 working days.".
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 24 tabled by Deputy Niall Collins was ruled out of order as a potential charge on revenue.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 7, line 8, to delete "€50" and substitute "€5".
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 8.
Tá
- Collins, Niall.
- Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’.
Níl
- Bannon, James.
- Coonan, Noel.
- Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Nash, Gerald.
- O’Donovan, Patrick.
- Stanley, Brian.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 26 has been ruled out of order, as it presents a potential charge on the Exchequer.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
Amendment No. 27 will be discussed with amendments Nos. 28 to 32, inclusive, which are all related. Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are alternative to each other.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 7, to delete lines 18 and 19.
These lines refer to section 70L, the discussion on which has taken up much of our day. The section contains the regulations on the maintenance, performance standards and procedures that will apply to the emptying of domestic waste water treatment plants. We have significant concerns about the lack of clarity about the standards that will apply. To be fair to our citizens, if we are to pass legislation, it should contain the full information.
Amendment No. 28 seeks to make the imposition of regulations on our citizens less onerous and more user-friendly.
Amendment No. 31 addresses an open cheque book, namely, the lack of clarity in the definition of "adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest". We cannot let this matter go without trying to tighten it up, as it is open to all sorts of interpretation.
Amendment No. 32 is the final amendment in my name and addresses how this legislation criminalises people by deeming them to have committed offences. We want to remove this criminal entanglement.
Does Deputy Flanagan wish to comment on amendments Nos. 29 and 30?
We are getting to the meat of the issue. For argument's sake, let us suppose that the legislation specifies that one must desludge once per year. People would argue about whether this was a good policy, as the activator would be removed. Were one to ask people around the country how much it cost to desludge, one would be given various figures from €150 to €250. I assume this depends on one's location, how far the desludged material must be taken to be disposed of and so forth. For example, if one is at the far end of Donegal or Connemara, there is not enough soil to dispose of the material and one would need to take it 70 or 80 miles to get rid of it. People in that area normally dump it in Roscommon, east Galway or somewhere.
People will need to look after their own sludge.
I know. This is the problem. The cost could be enormous if a person also has to put in a system, which I think the EPA will probably insist on, because one will be required to pay for electricity for it. As I understand it, if one does not comply with the regulations, in terms of having the required documentation, one will be in trouble with the inspector. This could, in some cases, be a great deal more expensive than €500, which many people do not currently have.
As regards adversely affected countryside or places of special interest, 80% of Connemara is a special area of conservation-natural heritage area-special protection area. When one adds in archaeology, almost 100% is an SAC-NHA-SPA. For example, the Aran Islands, which has outstanding natural heritage in terms of limestone pavement and machairs, has some of the most dense archaeology in the world.
If the Minister checks the file he will read of the difficulties experienced by the Department in regard to the construction a football pitch. My Department, in its Gaeltacht guise, was given a grant of 80%, in respect of which its heritage aspect was concerned with blocking planning permission. We managed to overcome that difficulty. While it was a priority habitat, we got permission because no permanent damage was being done and if people ever stopped playing football in Ireland, the pitch would return to its pristine nature. I commend the official concerned who was very understanding. Had he been a little less understanding we would have been in huge difficulty. These are the problems we face.
All of this ties in with section 70L, which brings us back to the basic flaw of which we continually speak, namely, that in the Minister's immortal world and his RIA there are no standards and as such we do not know what we are talking about. I again ask the Minister to withdraw this until such time as he can indicate the standards that will be applied and these have been examined and tested to see if they meet European law under the waste water directives and so on and are likely to stand the legal tests they are likely to be put to by the Friends of the Irish Environment, An Taisce and other groups. We are being asked all of the time to buy a pig in a poke. The charges that will ensue are unspecified and will be significant. For that reason I support my colleagues' amendments.
I support the amendments. This section of the Bill is tied to section 70L, to which I referred earlier. It is completely open-ended and provides for an unknown quantity. We are asking that the Minister take not one leap of faith but a number of them in regard to what will be a nuisance, the level of odour and the risk to water, air, soil, human health and environment. This provision is wide open in that it provides no specifications or measurements. We had an intense discussion on this earlier, which highlighted the need to park this until such time as there is certainty.
I, too, support these amendments. I have asked a few times today, and was taken aback by the Minister's refusal, that the experts who will be policing this be brought in to give evidence to the committee.
On septic tanks and disposal, I learned a great deal from Deputy Ó Cuív today, as I always do. I defer to his knowledge on this issue because he is knowledgeable in most areas. The officials know, if the Minister does not, that under this legislation people will be required to dispose of sludge from septic tanks at a designated treatment plant. There are 18-20 package plants in south Tipperary, in respect of which there was huge investment by Government and taxpayer over 20 years. These were subsequently taken over by a company. The county council must now pay that company for every gallon of liquid brought there, at a cost of approximately €200 per standard load. There is not a hope of a householder getting a tank cleaned for €150-€200. It will cost him or her a minimum of €450 because the contractor must pay for diesel and machinery, meet wage costs and pay for his or her EPA licence and permit. In this regard, the Minister earlier mentioned a figure of €150-€200, which is wrong. That is how it used to be. I am told that a farmer who obliges his neighbour, which is often the case given good neighbourliness is important in rural Ireland, and spreads the sludge on his land risks not being paid his single farm payment.
We do not know the limits of this legislation. I know - the Minister knows but is not being fair or honest with us - that the standards will be applied by the EPA. If not, An Taisce will be breathing down its neck. It will set the standards that will apply. The Minister also said the standards will apply only in respect of new build but that is not the case. Where a person's tank fails for any reason, he or she must, following an appeal, pay a fee or be forced to take the matter before the District Court. If he or she loses the case a new tank will be required, in respect of which planning permission will be required. The regulations in force on the day of the grant of planning will apply, which at that stage will be more strict. If one does not have 0.6 of an acre it is to hell, Connacht or Kilkenny with one. Where are people to go if they cannot meet planning criteria?
Deputy Naughten raised the issue of traceability and asked whether information will be shared. Does he really want to know the bowel movements of every person in a house? Are we to be reduced to the level of signing a register every time we use the toilet? This is bureaucracy gone mad. I cannot believe the Minister, who is a sensible man but has lost all sense of reality now, is allowing this go ahead. This is daft. It beggars belief.
I want first to flag to the Minister what I believe to be a weakness in the drafting of this Bill, namely, section 70C which sets out the responsibilities on the householder but provides for no obligation to record or retain documents. Yet, under sections 70G and 70H these documents must be presented. Perhaps the Minister will explain why people have an obligation to present documentation but none in respect of retaining such documentation.
On the point made in regard to septic tanks, the Minister will be aware of a particular problem in County Leitrim where the T value of the vast majority of sites is over 90. Based on existing EPA regulations, the vast majority of existing houses will not be able to comply with any new specification of planning permission for the installation of a new septic tanks. I do not know what will happen in such situations.
It is frustrating that we do not have an indication of the regulations. I again urge the Minister to consider amending the legislation, as was done in the past in respect of Aer Lingus. This would allow the committee to tease out and debate the issues in terms of what will be contained in the regulations and would deal with many of the concerns raised in the debate thus far. I do not understand the reason this proposal cannot be considered. This is an issue of huge concern to all Members.
The issue of sludge was raised. The Minister will be aware that each local authority will be responsible for dealing with sludge. Will the Minister give us an indication of the analysis done on the additional capacity that will be required by local authorities to deal with the de-sludging of septic tanks and the timetable for putting additional capabilities and facilities in place? We cannot be in a position where tankers will have to go across the country for this. We do not want tankers coming from Galway to Roscommon, although they are welcome to stay in County Galway. Many treatment plants are pushed to their limit currently and placing an additional demand on them could mean that tankers will have to transport material considerable distances for treatment.
Will the Minister explain the logistics of the following process to me? My understanding is the national plan will be ready in mid-2012, based on the regulations in section 70L. The advisory notice may then be issued by the inspectors subsequent to this, and that notice will set a specific timeline in which a householder must upgrade a septic tank. The Minister is considering the introduction of grants at the end of 2013. If the plan is in place and inspections are ongoing - some inspections are currently taking place on septic tanks and householders have significant additional costs arising from this - it is somewhat hypocritical of some to argue that additional costs will be introduced. There are currently significant costs and we have seen no increase in the group sewerage scheme grants over the past number of years, although water group scheme grants were increased.
What about the CLÁR scheme top-up in Boyle?
They were not increased but that would have helped to address the issue with quarter-acre sites in the vicinity of towns. I raised this matter on numerous occasions but it fell on deaf ears at the time. This will now cause a significant problem. Will the Minister elaborate on those logistics and will he at least consider bringing the group sewerage scheme grants to the level of the group water scheme grants, which could facilitate some schemes getting on-stream?
My understanding of the figures is that we are talking about approximately 110,000 tanks around the country which could fail, with a potential cost to the householder of €275 million. That is a significant cost, based on the figures presented in the Minister's regulatory impact assessment. If the work was done based on the national plan - a risk-based model - we could limit the number of homes which would be forced to upgrade septic tanks, and it would be quite easy to implement a grant scheme. For the sake of argument, a 60% grant would leave 40% returned directly to the Exchequer through VAT and others taxes. The net cost to the Exchequer would be far less than the overall headline potential that currently exists through possible regulations and the legislation as it currently stands.
In the absence of standards, where stands a house where the current site is less than half an acre if the septic tank or treatment system is not deemed functional? With any one-off rural house with a system not deemed to meet the required system - which we do not currently know - where stands the planning permission if the system must be replaced with one that is up to standard? Will the household have to go through a planning process in replacing the system or will environmental screening or an impact statement be required? Under the layman's definition of development, installing a new septic tank would probably come under the remit of planning. Could we get some clarity on those possibilities?
I presume Deputy Collins is referring to performance standards for domestic waste treatment systems.
Amendment No. 31 would delete lines 28 and 29 on page 7 of the Bill. I have listened all day with great patience and I have never heard anything like the hypocrisy of what has gone on today. I do not like discussing a Deputy who is absent but the current provision states:
ensure that the system does not constitute, and is not likely to constitute, a risk to human health or the environment, and, in particular does not—
[...]
(iii) adversely affect the countryside or places of special interest,
How could anybody ask to have that removed? We have heard the hypocrisy today of people talking about rural Ireland and such people do not seem to want to ensure that rural Ireland is protected. If those lines are removed, there will be a significant increase in the chance that Ireland could be affected by this. The Deputy's website contains the word "S-H-1-T-E" and we have heard much of that today, particularly from the same Deputy. The Deputy's true colours are coming out in the protection of the environment in rural Ireland.
The Deputy is drifting towards unparliamentary language.
I referred to a website that a Member has established. It was announced in the Dáil Chamber.
The amendments made in the name of Deputy Catherine Murphy are representative of the wider views of the Technical Group and not necessarily every individual member of that Technical Group. That has been made very clear to the committee. An amendment may be in the name of a particular person but that person may not vote on it.
Deputy Ó Cuív was part of the Government in power for the past 14 years and look what he allowed to happen to the beautiful Galway Bay. He probably allowed it to be obliterated.
I will not drift from the business.
What happened in Galway Bay?
We are discussing amendments Nos. 27 to 32, inclusive.
I will speak to the amendments. Sections 70B(1), 70B(2) and 70B(3) are affected. How does the Minister see the discharge of effluent from septic tanks being managed? Where can it be discharged? If it can only be discharged in wastewater treatment plants, two issues may arise. If a system is being privately run under a public private partnership or there is a treatment plant with no extra capacity - that is common enough in rural towns - how will the process be handled? Is it possible to continue spreading the effluent on land?
I will ask Deputy Ó Cuív to contribute before asking the Minister to respond. We have five amendments before us and I ask the committee, if possible, to conclude its consideration of those by 5.30 p.m., when we are due to close the session. That would be helpful as when we begin the next session we could go to a new amendment.
For Deputy Naughten's information, I introduced a CLÁR sewerage scheme top-up grant in Boyle.
That does not take in the whole country.
It was in Boyle in north Roscommon, which is Deputy Feighan's country. The authorities made good use of it but Deputy Naughten does not seem to be aware of what happens in the northern part of his constituency. As we are discussing group schemes, will the Minister confirm that the increased group water scheme grant will apply in 2012?
The Minister is making a great play of the random risk-based analysis. That is the same principle used, for example, with the testing of drivers for alcohol or speeding. As the Minister knows, in those cases the duty of care on the citizen is to comply with both limits, whether that citizen is caught or not. The Minister's document states quite clearly that there will be a legislative obligation on everybody to have an effluent system that functions 100% across the board, whether there is an inspection or not, and it must comply with all the regulations and standards. Therefore to ensure that the septic tank is operating and that I am in compliance with the standards laid down, I must have my system checked out by a professional to see that it is in compliance. If it does not comply, I will be required to get planning permission to upgrade it. That will cost a great deal of money. Furthermore in the area I represent, which is on both sides of the Corrib, a householder will be required to have an environment screening or perhaps even an environmental impact analysis. A Deputy asked a very fair question and in the normal course of events my response would be different, had I not been around for so long and seen the different interpretations of regulations, which I think are totally over the top. He asked why a person would object to a regulation which seeks to deal with conditions that adversely affect the countryside or places of special interests. I will explain the reason for my response. Galway County Council, contrary to the advice of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, insists on environmental screening being done on septic tanks that are within eight kilometres of special areas of conservation, SACs, even if the area is a mountain behind the septic tank and the water flows the other way. The problem with all these regulations is thatthey are implemented by the county council, to cover the eventuality that the water could flow up the mountain.
Did the Deputy bring in all those regulations?
The Minister will be called immediately after Deputy Ó Cuív.
This is an EU regulation, on foot of an EU judgment. The big difference between us is that in Galway, we have a great deal more day-to-day experience because of the way we preserved intact the ecology of the area. I live between Lough Corrib and Lough Mask and I want clean water. These are among the most fantastic lakes in Europe, not to mind in Ireland. We are used to European regulations which hinder real protection by maddening the local people. I have often said to anglers that the simplest way of keeping the lake clean in my part of the world is by allowing the farmers to fish. There is a long tradition of farmers in the area fishing because they live beside the lake. As long as they were fishing, there was no pollution into the lake. Rather than achieving the objective by minor regulation all the time, which Europe does, applying a little bit of psychology would have ensured better results. I know that nobody wants to destroy the countryside, but everybody living on the islands, in Connemara or on the shores of Lough Corrib can tell you that it is becoming virtually impossible for ordinary people to build a house on any of the Aran islands because of the regulation. When we talk about conditions that "adversely affect the countryside or places of special interests" it is the subjectiveness and the stupid way that it has been interpreted by officialdom - at home and abroad - to which I object. I guarantee that one will find officials who will tell people that no matter what type of system they install, they will adversely affect the countryside or places of special interest, because the officials do not want houses in rural Ireland. That is the bottom line. Last week when we were dealing with energy efficiency, they were trying to sneak in spatial planning - and you Chairman, think we are off the target.
I will bring the Deputy back to discussing amendments Nos. 27 to 32, inclusive. I have been very gracious to the Deputy.
I know that. We have another half an hour, and in that time we might solve some of the problems and that would be well worthwhile.
I invite the Minister to respond to the contributions.
Absolutely. Our problem is that unless the Minister deals with and proofs all of the issues against challenge from Europe, I can guarantee that the worst case scenario I paint will be mild compared to what will really happen.
I know Deputy Ó Cuív has had a bad experience in Europe, because we have a great many designations and difficulties in the environment resulting from the actions of the Government, of which he was a part, that allowed this to happen.
It was the then Deputy Michael D. Higgins who made them. As did the Minister.
I am trying to undo some of the job that was done in the 2007 Act when Deputy Ó Cuív was in government. Deputy Ó Cuív chooses to ignore that he and his colleagues enacted the Water Services Act 2007. I read out earlier from a list of inspections in County Galway and these are happening because of the implementation of that legislation. I am following up with a modest light touch regulatory approach in line with monitoring an inspection to deal with the European Court of Justice judgment of 2009 which the then Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, and his colleagues failed to do anything about, and with which I am now faced and also with the European Commission bringing us to court on 3 February 2012, and applying a fine of €26,000 each day and also a lump sum fine of €2.6 million. Deputy Ó Cuív is happy with that?
Absolutely. It will be a great deal cheaper.
I will try my best to save rural Deputies from themselves in terms of ensuring we have good ground water and we will implement a regime that will have a risk based assessment to protect public health and the environment. It is my intention to introduce planning exemptions to the work arising from this legislation. I know that Deputies will find it very difficult to get their head around the fact that there will be no planning permission required for this. What I am hearing from Deputy Ó Cuív is all of the regulations that deal with new build and the 2009 EPA regulations. This is about protection of public health and the environment in compliance with the legislation in place when septic tanks were installed.. I consider it more appropriate to give effect to any changes to the environment codes in the planning legislation and not in the context of water services legislation. Any necessary exemptions will be put in place next year in advance of carrying out the inspections. I am surprised that a Deputy from Galway would not understand or have read the reports on the lakes in his constituency, that were potential causes of cryptosporidium and this resulted in enormous costs to the public in his constituency who had to buy bottled water. It cost the taxpayer a great deal of money to resolve the issue and the publicity surrounding the poor quality water in Galway at that time cost us inward investment in County Galway. There is no environmental impact statement required, if planning exemptions are introduced.
Deputy Naughten asked about the generation of documents and the retention of those documents. We will look at that issue and may bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to deal with that very valid point.
The local authority capacity will be dealt with by a licensing system for private and public locations, drawn up in conjunction with the local authority to deal with the issues related to sludge. That is happening under the 2007 Act and it will be an extension of that in order to comply with regulations. Members must remember that the percentage of people inspected will be very low, notwithstanding the fact that there is already a requirement under the 2007 Act to comply with the regulations that are already in place, which is to ensure that the septic tank is working and not contaminating water supplies. Compliance is already there under the 2007 Act. I do not believe that Deputy Ó Cuív should advocate non-compliance with good practice in regard to septic tanks, which is what he has been advocating since the debate started today.
I understand and have been an advocate in opposition of the group sewerage and water schemes and I will tackle the problem in Government to rebalance the schemes to take account of present circumstances. We have a problem to deal with under the ECJ judgment. It is only right to help people through grants. The structure is in place and is being operated under the rural water programme in each local authority. I am conducting a review to see what we can do to rebalance it. I will make an announcement in the new year.
It is a pity it could not have been done when we had money in the country.
I am doing this in the context of being in an EU-IMF programme. This legislation does not set out what a national inspection plan does; the regulations do that. I have signalled that there will be 12 months to register and inspections will then commence. Time limits, such as how long one has to carry out remediation, are not included in primary legislation. It will be based on risk. If there is urgency about it, it is a problem now and we should not have to wait for this legislation. This is already provided for in the 2007 legislation and local authorities are inspecting people's septic tanks. I named places in Deputy Ó Cuív's constituency where septic tanks have been inspected. An engineering solution will be found, which it is difficult for people to comprehend. Deputy Niall Collins is quite right to raise these matters but there will be an engineering solution as the technology exists to find a solution on the site. Deputies have raised hypothetical situations about buying land, having additional requirements to buy a next door neighbour's land and what to do if the neighbour will not agree to sell the land. We will find a solution on the site to ensure that the public health and environment is protected.
The text in section 70C(1)(b) is exactly as it appears in the EU waste directive. It is included to ensure compliance with the directive’s provisions and the ECJ judgment. It is not possible to exempt the countryside and areas of special interest from the provisions of the Bill. Surely it is in the interests of the country to make sure that we have the assurance that there is no risk to public health and environment through contamination of groundwater sources in any area of the country, particularly special areas of interest that are very important for tourism, rural employment and to households. The provisions apply in particular to those areas. The text, as it appears in the waste directive, is included to ensure compliance with that directive and the ECJ ruling.
Is there capacity for sludge disposal? If there is not, what will we do? Given that we were all obsessed with the EU in this country, will the Government follow the EU proximity principle? In other words, facilities need to be nearby to satisfy the EU. Engineering solutions exist but they are rather expensive. Deputy Wallace told me about systems selling for €10,000 where one could drink the water coming out the other end of it. No one would have a problem with those systems and it would be great if they were all over the countryside. I return to the core issue that one cannot get blood out of a stone and people cannot afford the engineering solution. They would be delighted to go along with it if they were helped. With respect to Deputy Naughten, 60% will not be enough. Where will people find the other €4,000? It is not a good situation.
There is no point in making up figures as we go along. Deputy Flanagan has come up with top of the head figures and is frightening people.
Will the Minister explain the figures? There is a treatment system out there.
There will be sufficient capacity. There are private interests as well as public facilities that are licensed properly-----
I did not say there would not be-----
Deputy Flanagan asked if there was capacity and I am saying that there will be.
We will conclude discussing this section of the Bill in six minutes. If members want to keep this discussion going, I will call a halt to it at 5.30 p.m. If those who submitted amendments Nos. 27 to 32 wish to resolve this matter and wish to conclude the discussion on amendments up to amendment No. 32, I will facilitate it. I have been seeking their co-operation for the past few hours. It is in the hands of the members whether they want to continue this debate until 5:30 p.m or conclude it on this specific section so that we know where we are starting when we recommence.
No figures are being taken off the top of my head. Someone I know looked into it and thinks that it will cost about €10,000. If it costs €9,000 or €11,000, that is more than people can afford.
Does Deputy Stanley wish to press this amendment before 5.30 p.m or does he want to let the debate go on?
We have not yet dealt with this group of five amendments. I am happy to leave the other amendments until the new year. There is a particular problem with the disposal of sludge. I want to get a straight answer on the Minister's thinking on this point. I refer to a situation where the facility has been privatised. In Portlaoise, for example, Electric Picnic takes place every year and there is a problem with sewage from the festival. It cannot be brought straight to the treatment plant. I can tell members privately the reasons but I do not want to take up the remaining six minutes. It is a private facility and it causes huge problems. I dealt with these as a councillor and the problem followed me to the Chamber. I thought I had got away from it but it followed me here in September. When disposing of sludge it is common practice for a neighbouring farmer living close by to empty one's septic tank once or twice a year. Where there is a high water table, it may have to be emptied five times a year. I have seen septic tanks that have to be emptied four and five times a year because of the high water table.
What happens to the practice of spreading this on land? Can it be spread on land under this system? Section 70C suggests 20 reasons that will not be allowed. The Minister's senior officials are sitting beside him and I would like a straight answer to a straight question. Can it be spread on the land?
When building a new house, half an acre is the minimum area required. This is far greater when there are percolation areas. What happens when someone has one third or a quarter of an acre? I know of houses built before the planning days or before regulations changed in the past decade. They were built on less than half an acre. Perhaps Deputy Tony McLoughlin can correct this point but I believe Donegal allows houses to be built on one third of an acre.
Deputy Stanley is talking about new builds under the current planning regulations. We are considering septic tanks on sites going back 50 or 60 years. All we want to know is whether the tank is working. There is no planning requirement because it is planning exempt. When the system is in place, irrespective of the size of the site, we want to know that it is in compliance with the regulations of the planning conditions even if these predate 1960.
What if the site is too small to allow that?
No, Deputy Stanley is thinking of the planning regulations of today.
And EPA regulations.
Deputy Stanley is thinking about the modern EPA and planning regulations. These will not apply in this case.
Will the EPA have double standards?
I will get the technical people in the Department to give me an answer on the sludge question and I will revert to the Deputy.
Can the Minister get back to us on the question of sludge-----
Is the Deputy referring to the spreading of sludge?
No, the additional capacity required.
No additional capacity will be needed. Clifton sewerage scheme will be under way and there will be no need for the lads in Connemara to go any further.
Can the Minister clarify this point?
It is 80 miles.
It is not 80 miles from Clonbur.
It is 40 miles.
What about the carbon footprint?
The regulatory impact assessment flags the issue of capacity within wastewater treatment plants to accept sludge as an additional cost. The regulatory impact assessment also says that the cost of more technically advanced package treatment systems is €12,000, plus an installation cost of €5,000.
That is for a new system.
It is for a new system that could be required.
It is hypothetical.
On quarter acre sites with poor ground conditions, one could, but the point I am making is that some mechanism will have to be put in place to facilitate households because they will not have the resources available to them to deal with this. Would the Minister consider discussions with the likes of the ESB and Bord Gáis, which have a very successful scheme running in regard to home insulation? That, in tandem with a proper grant scheme, could provide a mechanism to facilitate householders in upgrading their septic tanks without incurring a huge additional up-front cost which they would potentially face under this legislation.
As it is now 5.30 p.m., I propose we adjourn the meeting as previously agreed. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I take it that the next day we come back, I will be first up.
We will rotate.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The select sub-committee adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 18 January 2012.