Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT, CULTURE AND THE GAELTACHT (Select Sub-Committee on the Environment, Community and Local Government) debate -
Wednesday, 14 Dec 2011

Water Services (Amendment) Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Amendments Nos. 7, 11, 12, 24, 66, 70, 72, 86 and 110 in the name of Deputy Niall Collins must be ruled out of order as they have the potential to impose a charge on the Revenue. Amendments Nos. 26 and 50 in the name of Deputy Brian Stanley must be ruled out of order as they have a potential to impose a charge on the Revenue. Amendments Nos. 65 and 67 in the name of Deputy Catherine Murphy must be ruled out of order as they have the potential to impose a charge on the Revenue and amendments Nos. 8, jointly in the names of Deputies Collins and Murphy, 49 and 111 must be ruled out of order as they are in conflict with the principle of the Bill as read a second time. These amendments seek to introduce conditions on the passing of the Bill.

Perhaps the Chairman will outline why amendment No. 67 has been ruled out of order.

There can be no discussion on an amendment that has been ruled out of order. The office has made a decision on the amendment and it is not for discussion now. If the Deputy has difficulty with that, he can take up the issue with the Bills Office or the Office of the Ceann Comhairle.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
NEW SECTION

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.—The Minister shall publish a set of agreed standards for septic tanks and treatment systems.".

Sinn Féin believes it is important that the standards are public and agreed and contained in the legislation.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4

Amendments Nos. 2 and 35 to 42, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, to delete lines 23 and 24 and substitute the following:

" ‘Inspector' means a person appointed by the Agency from within its own staff in accordance with section 70E;."

There are plenty of public servants engaged by the State who could do this work. We take issue with the engagement of an army of private inspectors to carry out these inspections. The State has these resources available to it within the existing structures of the public service. In support of this contention is the existing arrangement with inspectors involved in percolation testing who are on the panels of local authorities.

There is a significant problem with the acceptance of reports and work from these people. Citizens are engaging these people to carry out percolation testing and inspections, and they give recommendations paid for by the citizen. These contractors would be taken from a list published by the State and a report and the work would be paid for, although a report may be rejected by the same local authority which nominates the people doing the work. That is an anomaly which could affect this inspection regime.

I support the comments of Deputy Collins. There is a worry that we may have to employ a team of private consultants and there is a specific list in each local authority of people who may carry out t-tests and p-tests. It can be quite expensive to get the work done.

The man with the digger.

The Deputy should address his remarks through the Chair.

I was doing so but was distracted by a fellow county man, which is unusual. In South Tipperary County Council the planning section only received seven applications over a recent seven-day period, and staffing levels are the same as they have been in recent years. There is a bit of slack in there - and in other areas - because of the downturn in the economy. The enforcement section seems to be the only busy area. There should be enough qualified people in the local authorities to carry out this process without putting a significant onus on the householder to employ people to contest any decisions. I support the amendment.

The proposal put forward by my colleague would deal with an anomaly in the Bill. The Bill indicates that the charge to be paid for five years is €50. My understanding is that would cover the administrative cost of the county council keeping the register and nothing else. That may work if existing staff, which are already being paid, could do the inspections. If outside staff are being hired, however, should we allow that every inspection will take an initial visit, the appeal and a visit to verify that the work has been done? There may be four visits if the work is not done correctly. If people are hired on contract who have professional insurance and so on, the cost may be €200 per visit, as some areas may be 50 miles or 60 miles away from the inspector's base, meaning there would be travelling expenses and professional time to be accounted for. We can use engineering fees as a guide. For every household inspected therefore, there could be a cost of €600 that will not be funded by the Exchequer or the local authority, as they tell us they have no money. According to this Bill that extra cost would not be funded by the person being inspected as he or she would have paid €50 for the administrative costs.

This proposal deals with a lacuna in the Bill as nobody seems to be paying for the inspector if he or she is hired on contract by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, or the local authority. The amendment would make it possible for the State to deal with the issue without placing a burden on the Exchequer, which is ruled out in legislation, and without burdening the person being inspected or the local authority. The Minister would agree local authorities could not take any more burden as they are strapped for cash.

I agree with the comments of Deputy Mattie McGrath and other members. In the planning sections of Roscommon and Leitrim county councils there is plenty of slack. The number of staff in the Roscommon planning section has not decreased in the past four years but the number of planning applications has plummeted. There would be another benefit if they could be involved in this process as the staff would not be going over the top in crossing t's and dotting i's or getting up to mischief with people. They could be kept busy by involving them in this process.

I am disappointed that this Bill was guillotined on Second Stage in the Dáil as I made an effort to speak to it. Even as a member of this committee I was not afforded an opportunity to do so. There are areas of this legislation with which I have serious concerns.

I ask the Deputy to speak to the amendment before us.

This is EU-driven legislation and I would like to know why-----

The Deputy should discuss the amendment currently before the committee. I will not allow him to generalise.

Will we get an opportunity to speak generally?

No. There may be room at the conclusion of business to do so and I will give Deputies a degree of latitude. We will not have a Second Stage debate.

The planning sections of local authorities took on a significant number of staff during the Celtic tiger years so there is an abundance of staff to carry out this function. We need greater accountability at local level and I do not believe in bringing in an agency to do the work. I will not vote against the Government but the issue should be tackled within the remit of the local authorities. The personnel exists in those authorities to do so as there has been no shedding of jobs within them since the economic downturn. There is an abundance of staff which could be redeployed to deal with the issue. I would like to hear the Minister's view on that.

Deputy Collins proposes that inspectors should be employees of the EPA - that is the effect of the amendment - but I do not consider that appropriate. The EPA is a supervisory body for the purposes of the Bill and the local authority will manage the inspection plan. If there are sufficient staff in the local authorities to deal with inspections and administration, there will be no need to engage people outside the local authorities. The discretion will be with the local authority in deciding what personnel and staff will be used and how inspections will be carried out. That process will be subject to the advisory role of the EPA, representatives of which will speak to members of the local authorities and train the necessary staff for the inspection process.

I cannot understand where Deputy Ó Cuív is getting the €600 figure. Is this another red herring?

What is the cost of an inspection?

There is a €50 registration charge.

Deputy Ó Cuív, please.

There is no other cost for the client.

I am not talking about the client.

Deputy Ó Cuív should address his comments through the Chair and receive permission to speak.

The €50 registration charge is the only cost to the client. The local authority will manage the plan within the resources received from the registration charge. There will be no re-registration charge or inspection charges for going out the four times that the Deputy alleges. The €600 is another made-up figure.

Is it in legislation or is the Minister confirming that if the local authority engages a panel of outside contractors, the findings will be accepted by the local authorities in full? That is not what is happening now.

The plan will be managed by local authorities and the EPA is a supervisory body, as it is for all such matters related to risk-based assessment. The local authorities manage the plan and they will decide which staff are suitable within the local authority system and the public service, in line with the Deputy's suggestion. The amendment suggests that the EPA should employ these individuals, which is not what we want. The local authorities should be in charge of the process.

Is the Minister indicating that if the authorities decide there are not enough people in their offices to carry out the plan, the existing panel of contractors would be used? Those people must be paid so who will pay the people doing the tests?

That will only happen if there are insufficient staff in the local authorities to deal with the process. The local authority will deal with that issue from the proceeds of the €50 registration fee, which covers all administration. The Deputy is operating on the idea that everybody will be inspected but this will be a risk-based approach. One in ten or perhaps one in six people may be inspected. There will be a small number of people inspected.

I wish to respond. Those in my local council are always telling me that they are overworked and underpaid. Councils may not have enough staff and they may be obliged to hire outside people in order to meet demand. Who is going to pay for that? Outside experts do not come cheap. If I hire someone in south Tipperary to carry out a percolation test for me, it will cost €1,000.

(Interruptions).

If it is acceptable, I am going to take contributions from Deputies Ó Cuív, Bannon-----

May I have some protection from the Chair?

The Deputy will obtain a response in a moment.

I am not qualified to carry out P tests. I do not know what some of our Fine Gael colleagues, who appear to be putting on a sideshow, are referring to in that regard. I do not carry out P tests because I am not qualified to do so. In such circumstances, I do not know what the Fine Gael Deputies are talking about.

The Deputy will obtain a response-----

I am asking for protection from the Chair. The Chairman is quite efficient when it comes to dealing with amendments. However, snide remarks are being bandied about and I do not want to hear any more of them. This is a serious issue.

I have not heard-----

I do not want the discussion to turn septic.

I am moving on. I call Deputy Ó Cuív.

The Minister indicated that €50 paid over five years - that is, €10 per household per year - will cover both the administration cost that will be incurred by county councils in keeping this quite complicated register and also the cost relating to septic tank inspections. I checked the position with a number of engineers in different parts of the country and was informed that checking the average septic tank would give rise to a cost of at least €200 per visit. It is not logical, therefore, that a payment of €50 per household over five years will cover the overall cost of inspections. The reality is that most householders will appeal any decision against them in respect of their septic tanks. In addition, the majority of people are going to be obliged to carry out remedial work on their tanks in order to ensure that they meet the required standard. Is the Minister stating that all costs in this regard will be borne by local authorities?

The costs relating to inspections, the register, hiring contract staff, etc., could amount to €650 as opposed to €50. Will these be borne by local authorities out of their existing resources? Has the Minister discussed the position with the county councils? If so, have they indicated that they have the resources, financial and human, to carry out the necessary work? The Minister stated that neither the Exchequer nor householders or property owners will pay. In such circumstances, the figures simply do not add up.

Under the provisions of the Bill, one in every six tanks will be inspected. This would mean that of the other five tanks, half could be defective and we would be none the wiser because they would not be inspected. Has the Minister put in place a firewall to prevent the NGOs going to the European Court of Justice and obtaining a judgment to the effect that if there is a high failure rate, 100% of tanks must be inspected? Who will pay for this? I am aware from my experience with the digitisation of maps, etc., that one should start nice and easy and then take the necessary steps when Europe states that, as a result of the high failure rate, all tanks must be inspected. An obligation to inspect all tanks would give rise to major problems in east Galway - not so much in Connemara - and the midlands. Who will pick up the tab in this regard? There is no doubt that when we reach this point, county councils will indicate that they have run out of money.

A number of members are indicating. I intend to invite contributions from people who have not previously spoken, particularly those who are members of the committee. Others will be able to speak thereafter. We will take questions now from Deputies Brian Stanley, Kevin Humphreys, James Bannon and Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan.

The reinspection fee was set at €200 and then reduced to €20 and the initial registration fee was set at €50. Will the Minister indicate whether he has completely ruled out the concept of re-registration after five years? If people are obliged to re-register after five years, will they be obliged to pay a fee? Will they be obliged to pay such a fee at any stage? What is the position with regard to a reinspection fee? Like Deputy Ó Cuív, I carried out a quick calculation and I do not now how the €50 fee is going to cover all costs. I am of the view that local authorities are going to be obliged to increase the fee after a short period.

I am afraid that I must impose strict rules in respect of this debate. I ask members to refer specifically to amendment No. 2 which states that inspector "means a person appointed by the Agency from within its own staff in accordance with section 70E". The Minister has indicated that such persons would become a member of the EPA and would not be a member of staff of a local authority. It is in the context of the amendment, rather than the general scheme of the Bill, that the debate will continue. Otherwise we will never get through the 200 amendments that have been tabled.

Deputy Stanley has already asked the question I wish to pose, so I will defer to the next member who wishes to contribute.

I thank the Deputy.

The fee of €200 in respect of appeals is quite excessive. The Bill states that the water services authority shall arrange for the inspection of septic tanks. This will place householders in a very weak position. If possible, people should be allowed to engage the services of independent inspectors.

I remind members that we are not discussing the fee at this stage. We are discussing amendments Nos. 2 and 35 to 42, inclusive, which relate to the employment status of inspectors. I ask members to limit their remarks to the amendments. Once the amendments are disposed of, we can proceed with our consideration of the remainder of the Bill.

In light of what the Chairman has just stated, I will not now pose my question.

I appreciate the Deputy's co-operation.

We will be establishing a single national register which will bring in approximately €22 million across various counties. If there is a higher number of septic tanks in a county, it is obvious that there will be a higher number of registration fees paid. The money taken in will completely cover the administration expenses involved and the cost of the inspections and reinspections to which Deputy Ó Cuív referred. I am merely informing the Deputy with regard to the intention behind the section. I accept that it might not suit the Deputy but we are going to pay for what will be required through the local authority system on the basis of the €50 charge alone. It will be the only charge.

What about the cost of inspections?

I ask Deputy Ó Cuív to behave himself.

It will also not suit the Deputy to hear that the European Commission has agreed to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government's risk-based approach.

Was that at the European Court of Justice?

If Deputy Ó Cuív does not cease interrupting, I will be obliged to suspend proceedings.

Only the Commission can bring Ireland back to court. Given that it recommended the risk-based approach, the Commission is unlikely to do so in respect of this matter. Does that answer the Deputy's question? All of the legislation has been agreed with the Commission.

Does the Minister have that in writing?

Yes. I assure the Deputy-----

No, I want a copy.

It would be of great assistance if the Minister would to direct his comments through the Chair.

I will do so. I will deal with the fees in the context of later amendments. I do not believe questions relating to them are appropriate to the discussion on these amendments.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, to delete lines 28 and 29, and substitute the following:

"legislation made by the Oireachtas under section 70B;".

This amendment proposes that the phrase "'prescribed date' means the date prescribed by regulations made by the Minister under section 70B" be deleted from the Bill and that provision be made by means of primary legislation passed by the Oireachtas.

It is fairly standard practice that regulations are laid before the Oireachtas in order that, within 21 days and in accordance with normal practice, they can be passed, annulled or changed.

An issue arises in this regard. Under the provisions of this Bill, other regulations will be introduced. We need some mechanism to ensure that the regulation of maintenance is published before the prescribed date. Otherwise, we are buying a pig in a poke. Is the Minister giving an assurance that, before he brings back the prescribed date, the regulations provided for in the Bill that will have major cost implications for people in terms of maintenance, will be published and will be debated in this committee? If he says so, I will take his word for it.

I draw the attention of the committee to section 18(4) of the Water Services Act 2007, which the former Minister is well aware of: "Every regulation made by the Minister under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulation has been laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder." This Bill will amend the 2007 Act. The provision in section 18(4) will also apply to the regulations made in accordance with the Bill.

If I understand correctly, the prescribed date is the date the Bill kicks in. Before the Minister triggers that and puts it through, will he undertake to publish the draft regulations in respect of maintenance of the septic tank systems so that we get the cart behind the horse, not in front of the horse?

In the normal the way, there will be 21 days to annul the regulations.

The order of publication of the regulation, as opposed to enacting them, is to give an opportunity to understand what this Bill will entail for ordinary people in terms of maintenance before triggering the operation of the Bill. The maintenance prescription in the regulations will be quite thorough and it is important that people know what the maintenance regime will be before triggering the operation of the Bill.

The regulations will be introduced in a graduated basis and the first part of the regulations will be the methodology of registration. We cannot bring in all the regulations at one time. As the Deputy knows, that happened with many items of legislation in the past. There are commencement orders and regulations that are phased in depending on requirements. Deputies will have an opportunity to ask parliamentary questions and I will provide as much information as is available so that people have an opportunity to deal with it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, line 37, after "systems')" to insert "apart from county Cavan".

This is a short amendment and is self-explanatory. Much of the commentary made about County Cavan has been positive because it got its house in order long before the rest of the country. On the basis that Cavan was the good boy in the class, we seek to have it exempt.

It will be interesting to hear the response to this.

Deputy Ó Cuív attended one of the many public meetings in my constituency, Longford-Westmeath, and the Fianna Fáil Party was out batting on this issue as if the legislation should not be introduced. The issue that has arisen is why these charges do not apply-----

Deputy Bannon, we are referring to amendment No. 4.

County Cavan is in Ulster and I am asking why people have been led to believe that these charges do not apply in Northern Ireland. We are being told that they are driven by the EU. Do they apply in Northern Ireland?

To correct what Deputy Bannon said, I have a copy of the leaflet I distributed that night. It says that we fully support ensuring that our water resources are kept clean and free from pollution. The second line says that we also recognise that the European Court judgment requires registration of domestic effluent systems. Deputy Bannon is incorrect and I have recognised from the beginning that this legislation is needed.

I am delighted that has been put on record.

I will not allow the debate to drift off the amendment.

The Cavan by-laws are in place since 2004 and the council is to be commended on its initiative in this area. Its experience has been helpful to the Department. Since the introduction of the by-laws in 2004, the failure rate in Cavan on the basis of a universal inspection is 11%, despite different percolation conditions and difficult soil types. That may not suit the opposition argument. The Cavan County Council by-laws do not include any obligation on the owners of domestic wastewater treatment plants to register their systems. It is essential to include Cavan in the Bill for the purposes of registration. The by-laws oblige all owners to have their systems registered, not just on the basis of a risk-based assessment. It is a universal inspection regime and I am surprised that Deputy Niall Collins is tabling an amendment to impose the Cavan model of universal inspection regime on the rest of the country. It is onerous and I am not in favour of it. I want a risk-based assessment, which I agreed with the European Commission.

My understanding is that registration was never enforced in Cavan. The by-laws were brought in but they were never enforced. I also understand there was no charge but the enforcement regime was lax in terms of registration. I hear that from practitioners who were working with the system. It is innocent in the greatest extreme to say that we would get away with that regime when the NGOs get at it. Perhaps the difference between me and the Minister is that I have perennial experience of the NGOs camping in Brussels-----

I will not allow Deputy Ó Cuív to drift off. We are discussing amendment No. 4 in the name of Deputy Niall Collins, which allows for Cavan to be exempted from the scheme.

In refusing this quite reasonable amendment tabled by my colleague, the Minister is saying that the Cavan regime would not stand up because, over time, the NGOs would ensure that they actually applied what they wrote rather than just having it on paper.

Is it the Minister's opinion that what he is proposing will be less onerous on people in Cavan than the current regime?

Yes, one third of the systems in Cavan had been inspected and members know the different percolation areas in Cavan, Leitrim and Longford. One third of them have been inspected and only 11% have failed under by-laws introduced by Cavan County Council. I am introducing measures that are less onerous. It costs €150 every second year to de-sludge and I am looking for an inspection regime to ensure septic tanks are working. If Deputy Collins is tabling amendments to force people into a universal inspection system, which is the effect of that amendment, I am against it. I have approval from the European Commission for a risk-based approach at its instigation, which means that fewer people will be inspected and it will be less onerous than what Deputy Collins is proposing.

I support what colleagues have said about the Cavan situation. I cannot agree with the Minister who says that it costs €150 every second year. One must be registered and licensed and a neighbour can no longer oblige one. It cannot be spread on the land and it would cost €200-----

There is no licensing provision here.

Excuse me, there is licensing. One must have a licence to be a sludge contractor and to dispose of this waste it must be brought to designated sites and it costs €200 to off-load it in a treatment plant. It will cost the householder at least €500 to have the septic tank de-sludged. I would appreciate if the Minister did not slip in these silly comments because he is not being factual. De-sludging will cost at least €500. In Northern Ireland, local authorities have agreed to de-sludge. The Minister is incorrect because there is a licensing situation. There must be licensed contractors. I am in this business and I understand it. It will cost at least €200 to off-load the sludge so the total cost will be at least €500. The Minister is way off the ball. I would prefer if he corrected the record.

The Minister will have a chance to come in later on.

I support the Minister in regard to the risk-based approach. He said he had the agreement, and we must take his word for it, but perhaps he will produce the documentation. The only thing which concerns me is that the EU will agree with this. For all practical purposes, it must be a risk-based approach. It is not practical to inspect all 460,000 septic tanks in the country.

We will come back to this point in more detail later on but the Minister said a number of things which do not stand up to scrutiny. He said Cavan insists on de-sludging at €150. Presumably, under his maintenance regime, he will also require de-sludging even if one takes it that one will get away with the risk-based approach which I, in my experience of Europe, doubt will last in the long term. Europe is quite capable of changing its mind and bringing in new directives. Presumably, everybody will be obliged under the regulation - not those who are inspected - to maintain it, so whatever costs are attached to de-sludging in Cavan will attach to everybody in the country.

The Minister talked about standards and failure rates. He then said that this was introduced in Cavan in 2004 but what he did not say was that in 2009, a new EPA standard applied. There is an interesting point of logic here, which is, that the Minister said new build requires this new EPA standard but old build does not. If the EPA standard is only there to ensure clean water, either it is an over-specification because these old systems give one clean water - yet we insisted all these new builds have these complicated systems - or the only way to get clean water in these soil types, which I presume is the only reason for the EPA guidelines, which is what it has told me, is to do what the EPA guidelines tell us.

If one is saying that Deputy Niall Collins has an old septic tank which works perfectly and gives clean water but that if I build a new house and put in a €20,000 system, I get the exact same result as he got with a cheap system, that is, clean water, it does not stand up to logic. This is the credibility gap which the public has seen. They keep saying this is irrational.

To go back to Cavan, the reality was that between 2004 and 2009, it could not have applied EPA new standards. In case the Minister does not understand what happens on the ground-----

I do. That is a rather condescending remark from the Deputy who has been misinforming people for a long time.

The Minister is very condescending to the rest of us. I have not been misinforming people.

Telling lies.

I have posed a series of nine questions for the Minister to answer.

Deputy Ó Cuív, I have given you a lot of latitude but I would like you to come back to the amendment.

I want to explain this to the Minister. I have a request for further information from Galway County Council from somebody who had an existing house and was looking for retention maidir le athruithe a bhí déanta ar an teach - díon ardaithe agus seomraí tógtha thuas staighre le fuinneoga. Bhíodar ag lorg cead pleanála chun an obair a chríochnú agus córas séarachais a chur isteach.

The following further information was requested in regard to an existing septic tank. The person was asked to submit to the planning authority the date on which the existing septic tank was commissioned; to demonstrate that the septic tank had the capacity for the existing house and proposed extension; to state the environmental standards in which the septic tank system was constructed; to state the length of the existing percolation piping system and that it should be noted that a sunk pit with an existing septic tank system would not be considered adequate and that, accordingly, the existing effluent system should be required to be upgraded; to submit certification from a suitably qualified person to confirm that the existing septic tank and percolation area is operating satisfactorily; to state the frequency of desludging of the septic tank; and to state whether the existing septic tank system is not operating satisfactorily, which no doubt it is not with all the things mentioned above.

It also stated that a new site suitability assessment will be required to be undertaken to EPA standards - 2009 EPA code of practice: waste water treatment and disposal systems serving single houses - and that, therefore, the applicant should submit a site characterisation assessment report and supporting documentation to the planning authority for consideration and the applicant is requested to submit full details of proposed polishing filter and detailed drawings of same.

Ergo, game, set and match to the county council. The county council has already said the bar is so high in regard to existing ones, one cannot jump it. The man's professional insurance will not cover him to pass it and ergo-----

Deputy Ó Cuív, you are referring to the broader scheme of the Bill.

It is the Cavan issue.

The section of the Bill about which we are talking-----

I am trying to explain to the Minister why-----

Sorry-----

Sorry, Chairman, I want to explain to the Minister why-----

Deputy Ó Cuív, I gave you a good run without interrupting you. Please do not interrupt me when I am speaking. This section of the Bill states: "Each water services authority shall establish and maintain a register of domestic waste water treatment systems situated within its functional area (in this Part referred to as a ‘register of domestic waste water treatment systems')." The amendment in the name of Deputy Niall Collins is that County Cavan should be exempt from that section. That is what we will continue to discuss. I will now call other speakers. Deputy Ó Cuív had his say.

On a point of information, would the Minister be able to enlighten us as to how much progress his predecessor made with the European Commission in obtaining a risk-based system?

That is not relevant.

It is relevant to Cavan.

If it is relevant to the section-----

There are 120 amendments to section 4, which we are discussing.

I know that but red herrings are being thrown around the room.

Yes, there are.

In light of the fact the last programme for Government in 2009 committed to introducing an inspection regime, would the Minister be able to enlighten us as to what his predecessor had in mind? One cannot look at the Cavan situation without looking at the current context.

I will bring Deputy O'Donovan back to the amendment because there are approximately 200 further amendments. I want to be consistent throughout and I will not let members digress from the amendments before us.

This is EU driven legislation. Why does this not apply in Northern Ireland, which is what we have been told at public meetings throughout the country?

In regard to the amendment, we should sing the song "My Cavan Girl" because we cannot discuss anything else.

With respect-----

If we are not allowed to discuss these things, we are wasting our time.

With respect, that is probably the most relevant thing the Deputy said. I thank the Deputy for that excellent comment. Deputy Ó Cuív, do you want to make one more comment?

I do. The Minister threw up the failure of the success rate in Cavan but it predates the EPA 2009 guidelines. Therefore, if one applies the EPA 2009 guidelines, which the local authorities are already applying and which, in logic, are the only show in town-----

We must suspend because a vote has been called in the Chamber.

Sitting suspended at 1.20 a.m. and resumed at 11.40 a.m.

The Minister was in possession before the vote.

I wish to refer to Deputy Ó Cuív's remarks before the vote, when he read out the criteria required under the present planning regulations and the EPA guidelines for a new build. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are discussing - the criteria we are seeking to implement are to ensure a septic tank is working. It is rather ironic that the Deputy is reading aloud the requirements for a planning application, whereas in this Bill, I am making provision for a planning exemption, yet I am seeking to ensure that the septic tank is working. No planning permission is required for existing septic tanks. We want to ensure that in areas at risk, the householder meets certain criteria to ensure the groundwater is not contaminated.

The conditions set out in planning law, as Deputy Ó Cuív read out, are not a requirement under this legislation. That is completely superfluous. I remind him that the Water Services Act 2007 is the basis of the requirement to meet the criteria that he read out, however, that is not required under this Bill.

Deputy Ó Cuív is coming.

As I was saying, the matters that Deputy Ó Cuív read out in regard to planning matters are the requirements that must be complied with under the Water Services Act 2007, and he was at the Cabinet table when that was approved. It is not a requirement under this Bill. We want to ensure that the existing septic tanks, that are inspected on a risk-based basis, are working.

May I ask a question?

Yes, when I finish. Deputy Ó Cuív is advocating also that the 2009 EPA regulations be introduced in order to be consistent across the board between new build and old build. The Deputy is advocating that we introduce a more onerous regime, while he has been saying the opposite at public meetings around the country. To repeat, the Deputy is saying that we should bring in the 2009 EPA guidelines to ensure we have good, clean groundwater and that the regulations should not be inconsistent with the existing regulations for new buildings. I do not want that, as that is too onerous.

I am rejecting amendment No. 4 on the basis that the Cavan regime, that was introduced in the 2004 by-laws, is too onerous.

Presumably, the 2009 regulations have no other purpose but to ensure clean water. The basic logic is that unless the EPA is over specifying in its regulations, that is what is needed in each individual circumstance to ensure clean water.

It is not.

If it is not, why? Presumably the EPA guideline is there so that in new builds, it ensures there is clean water. If the existing tanks, of a much lower standard, can ensure clean water, why are we forcing young people into enormous expense, when by building an old-fashioned septic tank and making it work properly they could have clean water? It is illogical and I make the further point, that while the Minister might have good intentions, the illogicality of the proposal will not escape the NGOs and no doubt they will report back to Brussels on that basis.

I want to bring the Deputy back to amendment No. 4, the amendment before us. Unless he refers specifically to it and I find his remarks relevant to the amendment, I will ask the Deputy to cease.

That is okay Chairman, but I am dealing with the specific issues raised by the Minister, which the Chair has not ruled out of order.

The Deputy read from a document on planning permission that is not relevant to this amendment. I gave the Minister scope to respond to his comments, but the Deputy was out of order because it did not relate to the amendment.

I will refer to the amendment, which states that Cavan should be left out. In his reply, the Minister said - - - - -.

I am not asking about the Minister. I am asking the Deputy to refer to the amendment.

In all my years in this House, I have never had a Chair try to stop a member dealing with issues - - - - -

Deputy, if the Deputy makes the comment that I think he will make, I will ask him to withdraw it.

I am adhering to Standing Orders, and as the Deputy knows, because he has been in this House far longer than I have, a member must address the amendment. I am calling on the Deputy to address the amendment or I will call the next speaker.

What is proposed in the amendment is that Cavan would be exempted. My understanding of the Minister's objection to exempting Cavan is that the Cavan regime does not really fit the Bill. The Minister stated that there was a 25% failure rate in Cavan,

I said 11%, which is lower than what the Deputy thought.

Yet ignoring that, the standard of the test in Cavan is not the standard being applied now. The Minister said that he would apply a test with a lower threshold than that of the EPA. What I was able to prove quite conclusively is that county councils are applying the EPA test to existing houses. Furthermore, the Minister said that the only person who can take a case to the European Court is the Commission. Will the Minister confirm that nobody else can take a case on an issue to the European Court?

I never said that.

Before I bring the Minister in, I call Deputy - - - - -

Chairman, getting back to the document, from which Deputy Ó Cuív read, there is an onus on the Deputy to inform all the people that he misled at public meetings

Please Deputy Bannon, please refer to section 4.

I think it was wrong.

Chairman, if the system was installed in compliance with the standards at the time and is being maintained properly, people have nothing to worry about.

Does Deputy Collins wish to press his amendment?

I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

We now come to amendment No. 5 in the name of Deputy Catherine Murphy. I have a note that if amendment No. 5 is agreed, amendments Nos. 6, 9,10 and 13 to 16, inclusive, cannot be moved. Amendments Nos. 6, 9, 10 and 13 to 16, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 5. Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10 and 13 to 16, inclusive, will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, to delete lines 38 to 49 and in page 5, to delete lines 1 to 39 and substitute the following:

"(2) Each water services authority will compile the register from planning files, Central Statistics Office information, Ordnance Survey Maps and local surveys in their functional areas.".

Before the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963, there was no planning regulation as such. Records of all planning applications, refusals, withdrawals and grant of planning permission with conditions were put in place in 1964. I have checked this out with my local authority in South Tipperary. The local authority is obliged to ensure that all developments were in compliance with the planning permission conditions that issued. If they were doing their job, there was full compliance. There was full compliance. The Minister said that if septic tanks need to be upgraded, it will be done to the standard that applied at the time planning permission was obtained. I do not believe that for one minute. I have experience of the planning system over many years. From my experience, when planning permission was granted, the terms of the latest county development plan applied. I feel that the latest EPA regulations, which date from 2008-09, will apply. They are very strict.

The local authorities have a system where the grant of planning permission is marked on a map. These maps are now digitised and the local authorities would know the location of all houses built since 1964. Why go to the expense of creating another registration system, where a household must register a cost of €50? It is said that it will cost €50, but I know the council will be back to the Minister three months after the enactment of the legislation asking for money because of the expense of implementing it.

I am concerned about amendment No. 5 in the name of Deputy Catherine Murphy. I do not think we should accept it. The proposal she makes in this amendment is draconian. Many of the old surveys and maps I have seen relate to places in my local area that are liable to flooding. Drainage schemes have been completed on many tributaries of the River Shannon since those maps were drawn up. Some of the areas that were liable to flooding when the maps were being drawn up are no longer liable to flooding. I do not think we should refer to such local surveys. If we do so, we will criminalise people. Houses have been built in some of the areas that used to get flooded in bygone days. We have moved on. A great deal of development has taken place over the years. I do not think we should go back to old surveys and old Ordnance Survey maps. According to the 1913 Ordnance Survey map of Ireland, which was fairly comprehensive, several areas that have since been built on are liable to flooding. Such areas were flood plains at that time, but we have moved on. I do not think we should compile a register in such a draconian manner.

I have a certain sympathy with the amendments that have been tabled by Deputies Catherine Murphy and Mattie McGrath. I have checked how they might be implemented practically. At present, there is no comprehensive register of septic tanks in Ireland. The Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963 came into force in October 1964. Records of developments carried out since then are held by the planning authorities. Many properties that were constructed after 1964 have been sold, sometimes more than once. The planning records do not contain details of the changes of ownership. Similarly, ownership details regarding properties constructed before 1964 are not held. Under the planning and development regulations, those applying for planning permission are required to provide certain information in respect of septic tanks or other systems. This requirement relates to developments commenced after 31 March 2007 only. It is not possible to-----

Can the Minister clarify that point?

Some of the information we require in relation to septic tanks was not held before 31 March 2007. It is not possible to use the information collected by the Central Statistics Office in the census because the Statistics Act 1993 provides for the confidentiality of all data collected by the office, including census data. The information that is collected in the census may be used for statistical purposes only. No details that may identify a business or a person can be divulged to any Department or body. I would like to be able to say we are getting information from any source we can on a cross-cutting basis, but the reality is that we are constrained by the fact that census information is collected in a confidential manner.

I accept the point the Minister has made about the pre-1964 arrangements. Houses and other places were built before the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963 came into force. The planning authorities should have records of developments that have taken place since 1964. I do not know what Deputy Bannon was talking about. The suggestion that has been made relates to the planning files that are held by each county council. I do not accept what has been said. I will press my amendment.

Are we taking amendments Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10 and 13 to 16, inclusive, as a group?

We are taking them together for the purposes of discussion. We will not vote on them together.

They are being discussed together.

The question on amendment No. 5 will have implications for our consideration of amendment No. 6. We will have to resolve amendment No. 5 before we move on to amendment No. 6. They are being discussed together.

It is a bulk discussion.

If the question on amendment No. 5 is agreed, amendments Nos. 6, 9, 10 and 13 to 16, inclusive, cannot be moved. We will have to decide where we stand on amendment No. 5 before we move on to the other amendments in this group.

We can discuss amendments Nos. 5 and 6 now.

We need to discuss them all now. Do Deputies wish to discuss amendments Nos. 6, 9, 10 and 13 to 16, inclusive, before Deputy Mattie McGrath presses his amendment No. 5?

Is amendment No. 6 being taken next?

Yes. It is in the name of Deputy Brian Stanley.

Amendment No. 6 is straightforward. It is in line with the spirit we are trying to promote. People in rural areas will co-operate with sensible measures. That is the spirit in which this amendment is being proposed. Amendment No. 14, which is also in my name, is another straightforward proposal. We are seeking to amend the section of the Bill which provides that "a certificate of registration shall be valid for a period of 5 years from the date on which it was issued" so that it provides that "a certificate of registration shall be valid from the date on which it was issued". In other words, once a property is registered once, it is registered forever. I have made this point on a number of occasions. For the life of me, I cannot see why the re-registration of a property should be needed, unless there has been a change of ownership.

Amendment No. 9 proposes the deletion of the section of the Bill providing that an application shall "contain such other information as may be prescribed". That is a complete unknown. We do not want to buy into something if we do not know what it means, what will be collected or what type of information on households or land owners will be held. We are against that.

Amendment No. 10 relates to the registration fee. We do not believe that a fee should be charged. I suppose the main plank of the debate on this legislation relates to the payment of a prescribed fee. We are aware that no fee pertains in other jurisdictions that have similar monitoring regimes.

In the case of amendment No. 13, it is our contention that rather than a certificate of registration being valid for just five years, the Bill should provide that "a certificate of registration shall be valid for the lifetime of the property". Like Deputy Stanley, I suggest it should be sufficient for a property to be registered once. It should not have to be revisited. One should not be required to pay a fee upon re-registration.

Finally, amendment No. 16 provides that in the event of re-registration, it should happen "at no additional cost to the householder".

Registration will be necessary under this legislation to ensure that up-to-date details of the owners of unserviced or unsewered properties can be recorded, regardless of their date of construction. In addition, details of the type of domestic wastewater treatment system that is in place will be recorded. Registration will also be required to identify the ownership and location of septic tanks and any other on-site waste water treatment systems. We are obliging all owners of such systems to register with the local authority. I know Deputy Stanley wants to invite people to register, but we are proposing to require them to do so. I do not think an invitation would be as effective.

The details to be requested when people are registering are under consideration by the Department and the EPA. They will be finalised after the enactment of the Bill and the regulations. I will set out the registration requirements and regulations. I want to assure the committee that the registration process will be simple and straightforward. The launch of the registration process will be accompanied by an information campaign on local and national media.

A modest fee of €50 is proposed to cover the costs of administration and the inspections that have to be carried out. It is a nominal fee to do all of that. The best way to ensure householders do not have to pay for inspections is to provide for a registration fee of €50. The first round of registration will require basic information only. This will establish the ownership and the location of the on-site system. After a system has been inspected, the EPA may decide in future years that it wants more detailed information about the system, perhaps in light of what will be required in future. That may be necessary to have a more focused targeting of inspections.

We will carry out an information campaign to inform people on how their systems should be operated and maintained. We will offer some tips in relation to these matters. It is expected that the knowledge of the owners of on-site systems will improve over the years. That is what happened in County Cavan. A great deal of valid information was brought to our attention. We have been able to move with the information and experience of the Cavan case. It has been very helpful for the Department.

The Bill already provides that a certificate of registration will be valid from the date of issue. It is necessary to provide for the renewal of the registration after five years to ensure the inspection system is properly targeted and effective. A charge will not apply for the second or subsequent inspections.

The Minister stated a charge will not apply for second and subsequent inspections. I do not understand the reason people must register after five years unless the ownership of the property changes. If the owner of a property supplies the information required in the format specified by the local authority and Environmental Protection Agency, that should be the end of the matter.

On amendment No. 9, section 70B(3)(d) states the application for registration must “contain such other information as may be prescribed”. While I do not wish to ascribe bad motives to the Minister when he stated he will keep the procedure as simple as possible, he and I both know he will not be the Minister forever.

That is the first time today the Deputy has been truthful.

An allegation has been made that everything I have said until now has been untrue. I ask the Minister to withdraw that scurrilous allegation which he has made many times recently. It is the second time today he has made it.

The Deputy's comment was the first piece of misinformation today, as opposed to the first time he has been truthful.

Will the Minister withdraw the allegation?

I withdraw any assertion on the integrity of Deputy Ó Cuív provided he is speaking truthfully.

I am speaking absolutely truthfully and from bitter experience.

I will take the Deputy's word that he is speaking truthfully. There is a great deal of misinformation circulating in Connemara.

If the Minister were to come to Connemara, he would discover how European Union regulations work.

The Deputy's party could have sorted out all such issues in its 14 years in power.

As the Minister's comment has been withdrawn, I ask Deputy Ó Cuív to continue without interruption.

The relevant court case was in 2009.

It was under the previous Government's watch.

We lost the case.

I remind the Deputy that the Water Services Act was introduced in 2007.

If the Minister and Deputy Ó Cuív wish to have a discussion, I will gladly go for a cup of tea.

As I stated, paragraph (d) states the application must “contain such other information as may be prescribed”. We know from bitter experience that this is a blank cheque to seek more and more information over time. We have seen time and again that when one inserts this type of provision in legislation the requirements become more onerous over time. The Minister stated the registration process would be simple and the first registration would require basic input only. He subsequently stated that much more information may be needed later on the treatment system and other matters. Knowing the nature of bureaucracy and the demands placed on it by non-governmental organisations, I expect a requirement to be introduced within five years that information on all maintenance, de-sludging and other matters be provided annually by every citizen, including old people, and penalties will apply for non-compliance. The Minister should amend the legislation either on Committee Stage or Report Stage and specify exactly what information will be required for registration. He must also impose a limit on what may be prescribed in future.

On a matter of principle, as someone who comes from Dublin, I know residents of the capital do not pay for registration, maintenance or upgrading of their sewage systems. They do not bear any cost unless they connect a new house to the system.

That is not true. I ask the Deputy to be truthful.

In what respect do residents of Dublin bear costs in this area?

They do so through the development contribution scheme.

That scheme only applies to new houses.

One does not pay any costs if one does not have services that one-----

The Minister will have an opportunity to respond when Deputies have concluded. I will then dispose of the amendment.

I come from Dublin 4 where my mother has lived in the same house for more than 60 years. It is a simple fact that in all of that time the sewage system has been maintained and the Poolbeg treatment plant upgraded without any cost to householders. On the grounds of equity, how can the Minister justify requiring people who are in similar circumstances but live in the country to pay? Where is the equality and equity in that arrangement?

The development charge, depending on the county, may result in a person paying €4,000 or €5,000 to connect to a public sewer. Compliance with EPA regulations in rural areas could cost a householder in a rural area between €15,000 and €20,000. According to the regulatory impact assessment, the cost could be €17,000. That is the view expressed by the Minister.

On amendment No. 9, I fully concur with the views expressed by Deputy Ó Cuív. I do not want people living in towns to pay more charges than they do at present because they pay enough. I am of the same mind as the previous speaker on this issue. Sewage treatment plants have been upgraded several times in some towns. In certain towns in South Tipperary, however, the number of fish in local rivers declined after the upgrade. I wonder whether the cure is worse than the disease. This is a serious point.

As Deputy Ó Cuív noted, the legislation will require householders to provide such other information as may be prescribed. The position the Deputy described in Galway obtains in every other planning authority. If one is registered and provided with a certificate, why should one register again? The Minister stated in the Dáil that householders would only need to register once. I have not seen any provision in the Bill to that effect. On the contrary, the legislation states registration will be required every five years. By the same token, I assumed a charge would apply every time one registers. However, as the Bill is not clear in this regard, I ask the Minister to clarify the matter.

We are all familiar with creeping charges. New charges generally increase. What will be the level of the €50 charge five years from now? City dwellers are entitled to have waste piped into public sewers without an inspection charge. Any funding available for waste water treatment should be shared equally between urban and rural dwellers. This would be a mark of fairness towards all citizens. The Constitution provides that all citizens be treated equally. For this reason, I ask the Minister to consider sharing between rural and urban dwellers any funding that may become available, specifically from the European Union which is driving this legislation.

I agree with some of the comments made on equity and fairness. Deputy Ó Cuív, for instance, made many relevant points. It is pity he did not make them when he signed up to the 2007 programme for Government which committed Ireland to introducing this legislation.

The Deputy is wrong.

You signed up to it.

Deputy, please-----

The 2007 programme for Government stated the previous Administration would introduce "a scheme for the replacement and inspection of septic tanks".

I ask Deputy O'Donovan to desist, please

I am clarifying the record.

It is important that I be allowed to clarify the issue for Deputy O'Donovan.

One moment, please. I wish to deal with Deputy O'Donovan first. When I interject Deputies must cease speaking.

They must also speak through the Chair and must not direct comments to other members. All comments must be directed to me.

While I appreciate the Chairman's comments, when a blatant inaccuracy is being thrown around members have an obligation to correct it.

May I correct Deputy O'Donovan's statement?

No, I am moving on to Deputy Flanagan.

He should be entitled to do that.

This allegation has been made three times today. The fact of the matter is that we got a report at the Cabinet of a court case and subsequently we agreed that a Bill should be raised. At that stage I raised the issue of the cost implications and if we had introduced a Bill, registration and an inspection would be provided for but there would have been no cost on the citizen.

I thank the Deputy. I will call the Minister after Deputy Flanagan.

In regard to amendment No. 6, tabled by Deputy Stanley, there would be no need to coerce people if they did not live in fear of the consequences of what may happen when they register, that is, the potential cost they will have to shell out which they cannot afford. If people were invited, as suggested by Deputy Stanley, under a system whereby, as for urban dwellers, the rural dweller had the capital cost of the works required to be done covered by the State, they would come in their droves. People in rural Ireland want clean drinking water. The major fear is that people will not be able to afford it. If a grant scheme was put in place to cover the cost, as was done for towns, the invitation would be taken up and Deputy Stanley's amendment would work a treat.

Section 43 of the Water Services Act 2007 - during which time Deputy Ó Cuív was a Minister - placed responsibility for all the pipes from one's boundary wall to one's door on the property owner, including that of his mother, in urban areas, therefore she is responsible. That is not an insignificant imposition.

Not by the public authority.

It is not an insignificant imposition.

We had a good working system.

I would remind Deputy Ó Cuív that since I became Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government approximately €40 million has been allocated to County Galway, which is a rural constituency, including the Deputy's parish, in Costello, Kinvara, Claregalway and Clifden.

Where in my parish?

To say we are making no investment in rural areas in terms of the water services programme from taxpayers is not correct. I remind Deputy Ó Cuív that under the rural water services programme, with which he should be very familiar, a sum of €0.5 billion was spent in rural areas during the past ten years by the Government of which the Deputy was a member.

I ask the Minister to make his comments through the Chair.

Some €85 million is being spent this year. Group water and group sewerage schemes are being subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of half of €85 million this year, in terms of contributions paid to ensure good quality water and good waste water treatment systems in rural areas. If one's well or pump goes out of order, as a private individual one can obtain a grant from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to replace it. To suggest there is no investment by the State in rural areas and that it is all into urban areas is nonsense.

I never said that.

That was never said.

Deputy Flanagan said no allowance is being made for connection to the public system. If one does not have an opportunity to connect to a public system, it is allowed for in one's development contribution scheme. It is subtracted from the development contribution scheme in Roscommon as well as everywhere else.

Since the Minister addressed that issue, the cost of connecting to the public system-----

Sorry, Deputy Flanagan-----

The Minister made a comment.

The Minister was referring to comments made by the Deputy which he is entitled to do.

I am robustly refuting what the Deputy has said.

I do not know of any other legislation where the €50 is mentioned in legislation. Did the Deputy bring forward any legislation?

Through the Chair, it is impossible here.

I remind the Deputy that the €50 registration charge is enshrined in the primary legislation.

Every five years.

Will the Deputy please read the Bill?

Members are not making a good presentation for their case if they continue to interject while other members are speaking.

For the first time the €50 charge is enshrined in primary legislation. If people wish to read the Bill they will see that it provides for a €50 charge. To amend that charge new legislation would be required. There is no re-registration charge and no annual inspection charge. All the misinformation in Connemara and around the country is nonsense.

I wish to make a valid point.

Deputy McGrath, where stands amendment No. 5?

It is Deputy Catherine Murphy's amendment.

Chairman, may I ask a question -----

I wish to press amendment No. 5.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 8.

  • Collins, Niall.
  • Murphy, Catherine.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • O’Donovan, Patrick.
  • Stanley, Brian.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, lines 41 to 46, to delete all words from and including "with" in line 41 down to and including "concerned." in line 46 and substitute the following:

"with this section, will be invited by the water services authority whose functional area the treatment system is situated and will apply to have the treatment system entered in the register of domestic waste water treatment systems maintained by the water services authority.".

Question, "That words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 5, to delete lines 7 and 8.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 7.

  • Collins, Niall.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Stanley, Brian.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • O’Donovan, Patrick.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 5, to delete lines 9 to 11 and substitute the following:

"(e) in the case of an application under subsection (2), there will be no fee required.”.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 7.

  • Collins, Niall.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Stanley, Brian.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • O’Donovan, Patrick.
Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 11 tabled by Deputy Niall Collins has been ruled out of order.

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 5, to delete lines 22 to 39 and substitute the following:

"(5) A certificate of Registration shall be valid from the date of issue.".

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 7.

  • Collins, Niall.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Stanley, Brian.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • O’Donovan, Patrick.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 5, to delete lines 22 to 24 and substitute the following:

"(5) A certificate of registration shall be valid for the lifetime of the property or not less than a period of 40 years from the date on which it was issued.".

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 7.

  • Collins, Niall.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Stanley, Brian.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • O’Donovan, Patrick.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 5, to delete lines 22 to 24 and substitute the following:

"(5) A certificate of registration shall be valid from the date on which it was issued.".

Question, "That words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 5, line 32, after "registration" to insert "at no additional cost to the householder".

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 7.

  • Collins, Niall.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Stanley, Brian.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • O’Donovan, Patrick.
Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 6, to delete lines 28 to 31.

This amendment relates to the deletion of lines 28 to 31 and 32 to 34, which have to do with the area of prosecutions. We have an issue with this and I will now allow my colleagues expand on that issue.

I will defer to Deputy McGrath. Some of the amendments have been put through in my name to facilitate the technical group.

For operational purposes Deputy Murphy, if you are present in the room and the amendment is in your name, you are required to move it.

I withdraw in favour of Deputy McGrath.

I thank Deputy Murphy. She did not agree with some of the amendments we had put down. She is a very decent, understanding person and she has been compliant with the wishes of some of us. I thank her for being so understanding.

We do not want to go back to the days when rural people were visited by sheriffs and other agents. We do not want people to be forced into non-compliance. They are law abiding people, but they will not accept unreasonable acts like this.

Section 4 states that "A register of domestic waste water treatment systems shall be maintained by a water services authority in such form (including electronic form) as the Agency may direct and shall contain...". The "shall contain" is the issue. What will be on the register is "details of any prosecutions for an offence under this Part brought by the water services authority concerned, and such other information as may be determined by the Agency from time to time."

I have two objections to this. Details of the prosecution should not be kept on the register. It is an unfair intrusion into people's private business. If somebody is brought to court, he or she should deal with the issue as prescribed by the court. I do not see why it should be on a public register. My second objection is my perennial objection to the omnibus insertion of anything and everything the Minister wants at anytime he wants it. This always results in more and more and goes back to our previous amendment, which dealt with certain such other information as may be prescribed. We all know the tendency of bureaucracies to ask for more and more information. One would want a law degree to fill a housing application these days. Every TD and councillor will testify to that, given the information they have to acquire for people whose business is not to fill out forms and so on.

I refer to the part of the section which states "and such other information as may be determined by the Agency from time to time." The agency cannot put any acquired information on the register unless it gets it from the punter, which means that the punter has to provide the information. This is literally a blank cheque to the bureaucracy to write in more and more regulations over time on what has to be provided. We object to this blank cheque approach to the law here, particularly as this is not subject to ministerial oversight. It is purely a matter for the agency as to what it acquires. Will the Minister come back on Report Stage and agree that we add "subject to the approval of the Minister" to this line? In other words, if more and more information is required by the agency, the Minister would have to agree that this was a reasonable request for more information.

We all know what happens. This will go through. In about five or seven years, the EPA will ask for more and more information. There will be a political outcry and people will go to the Minister, who will say that he has no control under the Act on the information required by the EPA. If the EPA asks a person what he had for his breakfast, he will have to provide it because the EPA requires it.

It is totally outrageous to put a prosecution on the public register. The section does not state that the prosecution does not go on the record if it fails. If the EPA brings a person to court, but the person is absolutely vindicated, it still goes on the register. So if a person goes to court, it will appear on the register that the person was prosecuted, even if the court throws out the case and the person walks away as free as a bird.

I agree with this amendment as the section criminalises people because they are poor, and not because they want to pollute water. If people cannot afford this, I do not see why their name should be put on any register.

If the person wins the case, is it still part of the court record?

An equitable solution would be for the Government to bring in some sort of a grant for people who are unable to pay. There will be people who will not be able to pay through no fault of their own. It is important that we have some grant system in place, because we cannot get blood out of a stone. It would be unfair on people who have been prosecuted. Perhaps they could be exempt from the register.

I have a certain degree of sympathy with the arguments being put forward in respect of section 70B(9)(g), which requires "details of any prosecutions for an offence under this part brought by the water services authority concerned". I am prepared to look at that on Report Stage.

Deputy Ó Cuív referred to omnibus legislation. He was doing this for 14 years.

The Minister should check the record. I was very careful not to do it.

If he was careful not to do it, he failed, because it was done in every Act.

It was not done in legislation I created.

In order to be helpful, I point out that section 70B(13) states that "The Minister may, following consultation with the Agency, make regulations for the purposes of this section and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, regulations under this section may prescribe...". The Minister already has authority to give approval to the agency in respect of the information. I am prepared to have a look at it again to make it explicit that any information required will need ministerial approval along the lines mentioned by the Deputy.

I welcome the agreement of the Minister to look at these again. Why does the section not state "any such other information as may be required by regulation"?

We will look at that. I am trying to do what the Deputy failed to do. I am trying to tighten it up.

If the Minister checks the legislation I brought in, he will find that it does not have those provisions.

I am satisfied with the Minister's response. It is harsh to put a prosecution on the public record. I am happy that the Minister has said he will look at that again.

The two amendments are very good. If I understand him correctly, the Minister said he will look at section 70B(9)(h) again, but I ask him to look at section 70B(9)(g) again, which deals with "details of any prosecutions for an offence under this Part brought by the water services authority concerned". My understanding of this is that if I am brought to court but not convicted, it will still show up on the register. I ask the Minister to re-examine that part as well. It is a very good amendment. The section will even include people whose case is brought to court.

As I said earlier, I am prepared to look at that.

The Minister has stated that he is prepared to look at both amendments as the Bill proceeds. Both amendments are related as they refer to lines 28 to 32.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.

Amendment No. 19 is in the name of Deputy Catherine Murphy. Amendments Nos. 20 to 23, inclusive, and 25 are alternatives. Therefore, amendments Nos. 19 to 23, inclusive, and 25 will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 6, to delete lines 41 to 45 and substitute the following:

"(11) An authorised person appointed by a Water Services Authority may not have the authority to request the owner of a premises connected to a domestic waste water treatment system to produce a valid certificate of registration in respect of the system.".

We are giving far too many powers to the inspectors, the vast majority of whom will be reasonable but some get carried away with their badge and can be too powerful.

Amendment No. 20 proposes to delete lines 41 to 45, inclusive, on the same page. This is to do with the powers contained within the proposed legislation which will essentially criminalise those who do not comply with the legislation. I wish to remove the section within the Bill which will put persons in the category of having committed an offence as a result of not furnishing a registration certificate.

Amendment No. 22 provides that a person would have 90 days to produce a certificate. This would be more reasonable than the current provision I put the amendment forward it in that spirit.

The provisions regarding the production of a certificate of registration are consistent with those already included in section 22(g) of the Water Services Act 2007 and necessary to enable authorised officers of the water services authority to ensure the registration requirements in their functional areas are met and implement the registration and inspection systems. The offences are proportionate. The maximum penalty for an individual who commits an offence is a fine of up to €5,000 and there is no provision for imprisonment. It is not an indictable offence.

To ensure effective implementation of the legislation, it may be necessary to make regulations regarding hitherto unforeseen matters. The inclusion of regulation-making provisions is standard practice and I have already outlined that both Houses will have an opportunity to consider any regulations made under the Bill. As I have stated, a modest fee must be charged to cover the cost of administration and inspections. This is the best way to ensure householders do not have to pay for inspections. The offences provided for in the Bill are necessary to ensure proper implementation of the registration regime. This is the reason people will be fined if they do not comply with the legislation. The provisions are proportionate.

With regard to amendment No. 23, there will be ample time for owners to register their systems with the water services authority and I will be making regulations to specify the date by which systems must to be registered. My intention is that a period of 12 months should be sufficient. There was a constructive discussion on this matter in the Seanad, specifically on subsection (12), when I indicated that I would examine the time an owner would have to produce evidence that his or her system was registered when requested by local authority. With this amendment, I am extending the period of ten working days specified in the Bill to 20 working days. I am sure members will agree this is a reasonable and fair period.

I am glad there is no provision for imprisonment. The fines were described by the Minister as "reasonable", but a fine of €5,000 is not reasonable. Perhaps he did not use that word; I will not put words in his mouth. He may have said "appropriate" or something else. However, a fine of €5,000 is draconian. If a person fails to pay a fine and the Garda cannot collect the amount, he or she normally ends up with a custodial sentence. I seek clarification on this point. The Minister said there was to be no imprisonment. Is it the intention to make available all the Army barracks being closed down to hold all the people who do not register? There is definitely one in south Tipperary.

I ask the Deputy-----

I am only asking where they are going to put the people who do not register.

Deputy, please.

Are we going to have internment without trial?

I ask the Deputy to rise above such commentary-----

-----and please refer to the amendment.

I am referring to it and the Minister's comment that there would be a fine of up to €5,000. He said there would be no imprisonment, but I understand that normally when a person does not or cannot pay a fine, the Garda has the job of collecting it and that if the person does not pay, he or she is incarcerated.

The Deputy is seeking clarification.

Are we discussing amendment No. 25?

Amendment No. 25 is part of this group of amendments. Is the Deputy opposing it?

Is the Chairman referring to the amendment that proposes to delete "€50" and substitute "€5"?

I reiterate once again my principled objection to the obligation on rural dwellers to pay public authorities for a sewerage system when urban dwellers do not have to pay. This is nothing to do with the issue the Minister raised of the pipe that runs from the wastewater system in a house to the main road which must be maintained but which should, if properly constructed, require no maintenance over a long period. This is about paying a public authority for having a wastewater system. Nobody has to pay ongoing charges to public authorities for their wastewater systems in areas served by public sewers.

On the issue of investment in water services, as raised by the Minister, investment in water services in rural Ireland is good. It is a basic right to have a water service; everybody in the country has an entitlement to benefit from access to water, roads, telecommunications services and so on. Unfortunately, the Government has stopped the CLÁR programme, through which I was working to achieve the final objective of ensuring every house had water. Nobody with a private wastewater system receives a subsidy for the provision, maintenance or upgrading of that system. Therefore, of all the money the Minister is talking about spending, none is being spent on wastewater systems for those who are dependent on septic tanks or their own wastewater system. All the expenditure in the last 100-plus years on wastewater systems applied only to those with connections to public sewers or who were part of a group sewerage scheme connected to a public sewer who, I assure the Minister, were few and far between. Not one iota was spent on behalf of anyone with a privately owned wastewater system.

What we are saying is simple. Now that the European Union is insisting on registration and this law is insisting on standards, rural people should have the same access to the free service everybody else enjoys. There is little logic to the proposal. Take, for example, a person whose home is attached to the public sewerage system. That system is maintained and upgraded without any obligation on the householder to pay anything towards the cost. On the other hand, the person's neighbour must, because he or she is living just beyond the town, maintain a private septic tank, yet, according to the Bill, even though the neighbour is solely responsible for maintaining and upgrading that treatment system, it is he or she, not the town or city dweller, who is liable to pay a charge to the public authority. That is totally and utterly inequitable. Having experienced the two worlds, it is typical of the mindset in this country that one can always impose a charge on rural dwellers, but one dare not do the same to people in towns and cities.

The amendment was proposed on the basis of ensuring equity between rural and urban dwellers. That is all that requires to be said.

The Minister referred to a maximum fine of €5,000. I am sure the courts will have discretion in this regard when a case is taken by a local authority. In other words, I do not expect a fine of €5,000 to be imposed across the board. Will the Minister clarify that point?

Rural dwellers are obliged to pay a development levy when they apply for planning permission, a portion of which is aside to meet the cost of sewage treatment, even though a person must provide a septic tank entirely at his or her own cost. That legislation should be reviewed in fairness to rural dwellers in order to ensure equity within the system between rural and urban residents. The Minister might examine this issue.

I share many of Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív's concerns about the grants or subsidies available to owners of private treatment systems. However, it is somewhat rich of the Deputy to criticise the Minister in this regard, given his own role in government in the last 15 years when money was plentiful. As I understand it - the Deputy may correct me if I am wrong - the Government of which he was part made no provision for a grant subsidy or anything of that sort for persons with private wastewater treatment systems. As such, it is opportunistic of him to take the position he has on legislation which the Minister is obliged to bring forward on foot of a European obligation which should have been acted on as far back as 2009. In the previous Administration's renewed programme for Government dated 10 October 2009-----

The Deputy should confine himself to the amendment.

This is an important issue and I wish to finish my point.

I advise the Deputy that all debate must be within the context of the proposal before us.

I support many of Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív concerns, but I cannot support the irony of his new position and the conflicting information he is giving to the committee. To set the record straight, in 2009 his party stated in its renewed programme for Government, "We will introduce a scheme for the licensing and inspection of septic tanks and wastewater treatment systems". However, there was no mention at the time of any grants or subsidies for the owners of private treatment systems. Will the Minister indicate, notwithstanding the current straitened circumstances, whether there will be a subsidy or grant to assist people to upgrade their septic tanks? It is ironic that Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív should raise this matter in such an opportunistic manner.

Amendment No. 25 proposes that the fee payable to the water authority be reduced from €50 to €5. I cannot support that amendment on the basis that any fee, even one cent, sets a precedent and represents the thin end of the wedge. All such charges should be replaced by charges in general taxation.

On the basis of the polluter pays principle, with which I am sure Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív is familiar, there must be some responsibility on the owner to make a contribution towards the cost of ensuring a safe environment in respect of groundwater, in line with our obligations as set out by the European Court of Justice. The Deputy did not clearly state as much, but what his party wants is to have the Cavan model implemented. That is what his colleagues in the Seanad argued for and what was proposed in an earlier amendment. The Cavan model encompassed a universal inspection system in County Cavan under which all septic tanks were obliged to be desludged by their owners almost every year for the purposes of protecting the quality of groundwater, at a cost of €150 or €200 per house. Deputy Mattie McGrath would set Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív right in this regard. That is what would require to be done under such a system.

I never proposed the Cavan model.

There was an earlier amendment to that effect, in which the Deputy voted in favour. Apologies, that amendment was withdrawn, in fairness to Deputy Niall Collins. However, Deputy Éamon O Cuív's party voted in favour of the proposal in the Seanad.

I am not a Senator.

The Deputy's party voted for it in the Seanad. I am reminding the Deputy to be consistent. If he looks at the record of the Seanad - as he was advising Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill all night on that occasion, he should know - the Cavan model is what Fianna Fáil proposed. It was rejected by me on the basis that an average cost of €200 for a regular desludging and maintenance programme would be too onerous for householders.

To reply to Deputy James Bannon's question, the standard class A maximum fine to be imposed by a District Court is set at €5,000. However, the Judiciary will certainly have discretion in how that provision is applied. I assure Deputy Paudie Coffey that I will keep under review the possibility of providing financial assistance at the end of the inspection process in 2013 for persons experiencing hardship. That will also apply in what I expect will be only a small number of cases in which there will be substantial expenditure required in order to restore a system to necessary working order.

As I said, all we are asking is that a system be in compliance with the planning regulations in place at the time of its installation. It will not be necessary for Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív to advocate that people go to jail. It will not be necessary for him to advocate that people prevent inspectors from inspecting their septic tanks, as he did at public meetings held around the country.

I did not. That is a lie.

The Deputy did. I object to his use of the word "lie".

What the Minister said is a lie.

I ask the Deputy to withdraw that remark.

I will not. The Minister has put forth a lie; that is a fact.

The Deputy asked me to withdraw something earlier; he should do the same now.

What the Minister said was untrue, but what I have said is true.

The Deputy should have the good manners to do what I did.

I will obey the Chair, not the Minister.

I ask the Chairman to impose the same restrictions on the Deputy which he imposed on me.

I must ask Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív to withdraw his comment.

I will withdraw the word "lie" and instead say what the Minister has said is totally incorrect and untrue.

(Interruptions).

I am sorry that the Deputy will not be in a position under this legislation to go to jail, as advocated by him in Connemara.

I have asked the Minister about the consequences where a fine is not collected or paid. My understanding is that when fines remain unpaid, the Garda has the job of collecting them. Will the Minister have to use the Army barracks to accommodate all of the fine defaulters?

(Interruptions).

Will the Chairman have Deputy Noel Coonan's remark withdrawn? He wondered whether I was speaking from experience.

I am not sure what the comment is that needs to be withdrawn.

I know what it is. The implication is that I had to pay fines and know the consequences of this.

I am unsure as to the comment Deputy Coonan made, but it seems to imply Deputy Mattie McGrath may have been fined on some occasion.

I would never make such an implication.

Is the comment the Deputy made-----

I was not commenting; I asked a question.

Will the Deputy withdraw his comment?

I did not make a comment.

The Deputy did make a comment.

I asked a question.

The Deputy asked me whether I was speaking from experience. It is a downright derogatory comment and I insist on the Chairman asking him to withdraw it.

The implication of Deputy Coonan's question is that the member before us has been in breach of some legal procedure. Will the Deputy withdraw his question?

No, the implication could be or is that-----

I will not engage with the Deputy. Will he withdraw his question?

I asked him a question.

I will not engage with Deputy Coonan. Will he withdraw his question?

No, I asked the question.

I will suspend the meeting for ten minutes.

Sitting suspended at 1.10 p.m. and resumed at 1.20 p.m.

The meeting is in public session. Does Deputy Coonan wish to withdraw the statement?

If the question I asked caused offence, then I withdraw it.

Is that acceptable to Deputy Mattie McGrath?

It did cause offence.

The member concerned has withdrawn the implication of any offence he might have caused the Deputy, is that acceptable to him?

The Deputy is in possession.

The Minister mentioned the imposition of a fine but what will happen if a fine is not paid? He said there would be no imprisonment, which is welcome. I understand in the District Court and other courts that if fines remain unpaid, it becomes a matter for the authorities, namely, the Garda or the county sheriff, to collect those fines. If fines remain unpaid, the people concerned will be taken away and imprisoned. I know of people to whom that happened. Could the non-payment of a fine entail imprisonment?

When this issue arose in government, I made it clear that unless the safeguards I am now seeking were built into the legislation-----

There is no record of that.

I am making a statement of fact.

I take the Deputy's word for it.

We did not get a draft Bill. The safeguards I seek to be included in this Bill will have to be addressed. If the Minister wants proof of my good faith in that respect, I advise him that when extra standards in terms of certain requirements were imposed on people in the Gaeltacht areas, we grant aided them to the tune of 80% because those standards involved the kinds of costs for those people that are involved in this Bill.

The Minister referred to the polluter pays principle. Since people in the city pay nothing in this respect is the Minister saying that it is known that what is produced in cities does not pollute or is not pollution? If so, what is so different between what people in the city and people in the country do when they go into the toilet, wash their hands and so on that it amounts to pollution in the country and not in the city?

I do not understand the Minister's reference to the polluter pays principle. In Ireland one does not pay for the cost of the disposal of the effluent one produces in a private dwelling house in an urban area, the treatment of which is dealt with for free.

The Minister said he would bring in a grant for hardship cases. He should announce such a grant now. There is plenty of money in the kitty, some €1.5 billion for the next five years for water and sewerage services. He should announce the amount of the grant now. Why is he bringing in a grant for hardship cases? I never saw a means test for sewerage service charges applied to people in a city, town or village - such charges do not exist. Therefore, if it is sauce for the goose it is sauce for the gander, or does the Government intend to introduce a means test whereby those who have higher incomes in cities, towns and villages where there is a public sewerage network will have to pay the economic cost of disposing of their effluent, and that those who are poor will get a waiver from that cost? Is that what the Minister is telling us is coming down the track? It would be interesting for city people to hear about it if that is what he is intends to do. The clear implication of his approach if he is intends to be equitable in the treatment of the delivery of services in town and country, is that he will proceed in that direction because it is unreasonable to impose charges for this service on a means tested basis in the country and not to apply them on that basis in the cities.

The Minister said that the systems must be in compliance with whatever standards were in place at the time. I have two questions for him in that respect. Does it mean that if one has a pre-planning house, namely one that was built prior to 1964 which did not require planning permission, no standards will apply because none applied at that time? There are a lot of those houses in the country. That is the logic of what the Minister said. It is fair to say that the standards that applied in 1964 and 1965 might not result in the supply of clean water. Is the Minister saying that even if the standards in place do not give clean water - presumably the reason standards continue to be increased is to give clean water - that as long as a homeowner complies with the standards that applied at the time, the homeowner is through the gap and that he or she can continue to pollute to his or her heart's content?

I suggest that the issue of the standards that apply and the maintenance regime are the two huge unknowns in this Bill. I suggest we conclude this meeting at 1.30 p.m. and suspend consideration of the Bill until we bring the EPA before the committee because its representatives are the people who will lay down the standards. They will ensure that the engineers who will be involved will have professional indemnity insurance. In terms of what the Minister is saying I believe such engineers will not be able to sign off on this work under their professional indemnity insurance. I suggest that further discussion on the Bill be deferred until the EPA comes before the committee and outlines clearly what standards it will apply in the case of this legislation and that such standards be clearly set out. If we were to find that out, we would know where we have to go.

If a much lower standard were to apply by some magic, the next question will be has the Government got approval from Europe for it and would it be challengeable in the European Court of Justice? I imagine it would if one is not applying a standard equivalent to that provided in the waste water directive, and that is a modern standard rather than the older standards. That is the nub of the expensive issue that people face in this Bill.

We are going down a dangerous road in the argument on this issue. As a member of the committee, I came to this meeting with an open mind but at this stage of the debate the argument is being based on an urban-rural divide. Urban areas make payments. The Deputy will realise that more than 65% of all taxation is raised in urban areas and the 60% of money spent in rural areas is raised in urban areas. If we go down the road in this debate of a urban-rural divide, it will be a divisive one. The Deputy is well aware of the volume of taxation raised in urban areas. There are areas that need to be addressed in this regard to which the Minister has already referred, but constantly arguing over what an urban dweller as against a rural dweller pays will not do any good in terms of this Bill or in our working together as a nation to resolve issues.

I could speak on every Bill that is introduced after this one and argue about the volume of taxes that is raised in urban areas. Urban dwellers are quite happy to see money accrued through their taxes being spent in rural areas. There is a sense of unity underpinning that rather than the one of divisiveness about which the Deputy has spoken. I ask him to refrain from that level of argument. It is not a good argument and it does not stand up factually.

There was a serious outbreak of cryptosporidium in Galway city, in the constituency adjacent to that of Deputy Ó Cuív's, and in my home town of Portlaw in County Waterford and those outbreaks cost not only the businesses but the residents of those urban areas hugely. Until we address the whole area of waste water treatment in a proper and fair fashion such outbreaks will continue. They involved serious health issues as well as financial issues for those urban areas. I do not want there to be a further outbreak of it in my area as I am sure Deputy Ó Cuív would not want to see a further outbreak of it in Galway or any other urban space.

We should have a debate and raise the issues that need to be spoken about but I would be seriously concerned if this turns into an urban versus rural debate. We are all Irish citizens and we want what is best for every citizen, whether they live in rural or urban areas. We should approach this issue in a responsible fashion. Deputy Ó Cuív had 14 years to deal with this issue and he failed.

Clean water is a right of every citizen of the State whether they live in an urban or rural area but I understand Deputy Ó Cuív's point that rural dwellers paid development levies at planning stage and they should be eliminated from this measure. I mentioned that previously to the Minister. Waste water systems in cities and towns are paid for and maintained by the Exchequer utilising European Union funding. The case can be made that a grant system should be put in place for rural dwellers if they must upgrade their septic tanks. I want to see that happen. We are bringing in this new legislation and the only equitable solution is to set up a grant aid system to meet the requirements in the EU directives.

It is approaching 1.30 p.m. Deputy Stanley was late in indicating his wish to contribute but I will call him if he can be brief.

I had been indicating for a while but anyway-----

No, the Deputy has not. That is an incorrect remark because it implies that I had been ignoring him.

No. The Chairman was distracted.

Is the Deputy withdrawing that?

Let us not be too tetchy about it.

The Deputy is implying that I was ignoring him.

I will leave my contribution until after the lunch break.

I will allow the Deputy contribute now.

My problem is that we are supposed to keep our remarks to the amendments yet the Chairman allowed a wide discussion take place. I have no problem with that but if I had known that I could have got in to speak. I did indicate a few times but anyway-----

Does the Deputy wish to speak now or wait until 3 o'clock?

What I have to say will take two minutes.

Please proceed.

We are discussing the issue of standards that apply but I have a major doubt about that which I raised with the Minister in the Chamber. In the 1980s I lived in a house built pre-1964. The septic tank was probably installed in the early 1960s. It was a square chamber in the ground with a pipe leading from it to a soak hole, which probably seeped out into a watercourse. That house is still the same. When I raised it with the Minister his answer was that once the septic tank is working as it was installed to work it will be passed. There was a question of whether there were odours from it. I cannot see the Environmental Protection Agency and the European standards allowing that to go through, nor should it be let go through.

The elephant in the room is the cost of the upgrade. It is fine to put this system in place but I cannot envisage inspectors who have insurance coming out and signing off on a septic tank such as the one I have described simply because it works as it was supposed to work in 1962 or 1964. This entire debate is false until we resolve those issues. We are putting the cart before the horse. We should have the standards and regulations before us to allow us see what we are dealing with. The debate on 90% of what is contained in this Bill will be false until we resolve those issues.

Sitting suspended at 1.35 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.

I propose that Deputy Coonan replace me in the Chair between 3.40 p.m. and 4.10 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.

If somebody says something bad to me, who will keep him in order?

I have total confidence in Deputy Coonan's capability to chair the meeting and deal with Deputy McGrath appropriately.

Before the break, we spoke about the rural-urban divide. Irrespective of where one is living, one has responsibilities and must not contaminate ground-water or endanger public health or the environment. Under the EU-IMF agreement, water charges are to be introduced through metering. This will affect public supplies, mostly in urban areas.

It will affect rural areas in the same way. Is there not water supplied throughout rural areas?

I stated water from a public supply will be paid for and that-----

There are public supplies throughout rural areas. The Minister should not be giving me that one.

I had hoped that every member would be orderly after lunch.

I believed I afforded Deputy Ó Cuív great latitude when listening to him debate and I am trying to be reasonable.

That is nonsense.

Half a billion euro is being spent in rural areas, as was mentioned. Subsidies for group schemes are being paid by the Exchequer. If one has a difficulty with a private well, one receives a grant. There is a view being circulated that no money at all is being provided for rural areas.

There is a small amount for water but not waste-water-----

Without order, we will not be able to complete Committee Stage.

I draw Deputy Ó Cuív's attention to the fact that there is an equalisation fund for motor tax. It will be the same for the household charge and local government fund.

We all pay the same motor tax.

There is an equalisation fund that transfers resources from urban to rural areas.

We transfer resources from rural to urban areas every day. We pay the same motor tax.

We will not be able to conclude by 5.30 p.m. if we proceed in this manner. I do not want to suspend the meeting again and I want to have as much of the Bill-----

The simple fact of the matter is that if I had a car in a rural area, I would have to pay the same motor tax as if I were in the city.

I ask Deputy O Cuív to address his comments through the Chair, when he is invited to do so.

I am sure the Deputies have noticed the figures over the years. Deputy Ó Cuív, as a former Minister, will know there is a significant transfer from urban to rural areas through the local government fund in respect of receipts from motor tax. There is a good reason for that.

On the other hand, there is a considerable transfer of resources-----

Deputy Ó Cuív will be suspended from the meeting. He is not a member of the select committee, nor is he the primary spokesperson.

As a Member of the Oireachtas, I have a right to attend.

The Deputy will have a right to speak when called upon to do so. He has not been called upon to do so and if he persists in this manner I will suspend the meeting once more.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Walsh stated quite rightly that I have done what Deputy Ó Cuív failed to do for 14 years as a Minister. Deputy Ó Cuív has engaged in misrepresentation continually for a considerable period. When we have an opportunity to correct the misinformation, he becomes sensitive about it.

I am sensitive to the rubbish spoken by the Minister. It is the other way around; the Minister is the one who is sensitive.

He has engaged in misrepresentation continually. He began with the annual charge of €300.

I started with-----

(Interruptions).

He joined in with everybody else.

Order, please.

If the Minister had actually attended the meeting in question, he would know that I asked Deputy Kyne whether the allegation was true. I said that if he could tell me it was not, I would accept that absolutely. Perhaps the Deputy did not understand what I said.

I am not here to listen to-----

The Minister has been publishing totally untrue statements about me in the newspapers. For the first time in my life, I was tempted to take him to court.

Sitting suspended at 3.05 p.m. and resumed at 3.15 p.m.

The Minister has possession and-----

May I ask a question?

You may.

My understanding of the procedure for Committee Stage of any Bill is that as long as a relevant debate was taking place in respect of any section, such a debate was never curtailed or guillotined. Earlier today, members were still offering to contribute on amendments but were cut short and the question was put to a vote. In my time in the Oireachtas, on either side of the House, I have never before seen the truncation of debate on Committee Stage. If members have points to make in response to what the Minister has to say, which normally is the case, will they be allowed to explain their points as long as they are relevant to the amendments?

I have tried my best to accommodate debate all day in what the Deputy will agree has been a highly fractious meeting. I have indicated my opinion, which is that to some extent, members have not been of assistance in the conduct of the debate. As for the item to which the Deputy referred, his colleague actually moved the vote when I put it to him. I will continue to accommodate as much debate as I can this afternoon but for this meeting to work successfully - and this legislation will not be concluded by 5.30 p.m. today-----

What is the hurry?

I do not seek its conclusion by 5.30 p.m. today. On the contrary, I will facilitate whatever time is required, in so far as I possibly can. However, when members are in possession, I ask that other members do not interrupt.

Members must be given a chance to respond.

I have done so all day and have stated I would revert to members in this regard. In fairness, members have been given extensive latitude, particularly Deputy Ó Cuív in respect of a number of matters. He probably has been given the most speaking time in this session.

No doubt. I have also offered the most.

The Deputy has been accommodated more than anyone else at this meeting. We will continue proceedings with the Minister in possession, after which I will return to the other side of the floor and other members, both in government and in opposition, may contribute. Does Deputy Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan wish to comment on the same point?

Yes. Members are here because they believe in or have opinions on certain matters. If they ask a specific question but, as can happen, the answer goes on a tangent that touches on another issue, it is inevitable that members will wish to revert to it. Consequently, it might help, were the answers to be curtailed.

In response to that observation, if the questions specifically relate to the amendment under discussion at a particular point, members have a better opportunity of getting an answer to the question.

In fairness, I have asked questions in that spirit.

I agree with the Deputy, who has made that point previously. This will happen if members contain themselves to the amendments before them. However, members will agree that when they digress from that, there also will be a digression in the responses. The Minister is in possessions and should be allowed contribute without interruption, if possible.

I will conclude by commenting on Deputy Catherine Murphy's amendment on reducing the registration fee. Members should note that in Northern Ireland, which was mentioned on both Second and Committee Stages, the fee for septic tanks and other on-site waste water treatment systems is called a consent to discharge to waterways and underground strata. The amount payable there is £115 sterling, having been increased from £110 last April. In Scotland, the registration fees are £77 if the application is made online and £104 if made in paper form.

Is that fee per annum?

No, it is not.

On this point, the Minister mentioned it would cost a tenner a year forever but this will not really cover any expenses. I accept his point on Northern Ireland, which is fine but the fee will not remain at the level proposed because with different Ministers, people and times, it will change. Consequently, I will press that amendment.

However, I still have not received answers to the questions I put to the Minister in the session before lunch with regard to fines. Fines are fines, no matter what court issues them. While the Minister has stated clearly there is nothing in this legislation regarding imprisonment, and thank God for that, I already have twice asked about what will happen if the fine is not paid. In the event of any fine not being paid, it falls to the courts system and the Garda to collect it and in many cases, people are imprisoned. Consequently, I still seek clarification in this regard.

First, it is the Government and not the Opposition that is creating the rural-urban divide. As someone who comes from urban Ireland, I hope I have the sense of fair play to accept that everyone has a right to basic services. The individual cost of providing that service in an area has always been evenly spread. If we got into an argument about which side of the country pays more tax, one would probably find that the greatest expenditure per capita is in poor urban areas, with least effect for the benefit of the citizen, but it is a fact. The argument that it is a concession to get water in rural Ireland is totally spurious. We all pay our taxes equally according to our responsibilities. In other words, if I earned the same amount as someone in Dublin city, we would pay the same income tax, and the same applies to car tax. The State always has an obligation to spread the money around, once it collects it into one big pot, in a way that provides basic services universally to its people irrespective of location.

I asked the Minister a question but did not get an answer. The Minister said the standards that will apply are those that apply when one seeks planning permission. My question is a simple one. For all those pre-1964 houses, since there was no planning permission and no standards, does that mean that no standards will be applied to them when the inspector comes out? Will the inspector's insurance cover this? If standards are to be applied, what will they be, since there were no standards when they applied for planning permission?

I apologise for not being present for the earlier debate. Perhaps the Minister can clarify what the issue is concerning standards post the introduction of planning permission, vis-à-vis the various standards that have been in place up to now.

The Minister's amendment No. 23 seeks to increase the number of days from ten to 20. Is there an obligation on the local authority when a request goes in for reissuing a certificate that the water authority would reissue it within a certain period? There is not much point in placing an obligation on the householder to present a certificate if they mislaid it and there is no obligation on the local authority to issue a certificate within that period.

Is there an onus on a local authority to issue a renewal notice? As the Minister knows, we had a debacle in the past about driving licences, where there was no responsibility on the local authority to issue a renewal notice. As a result, many people's driving licences lapsed. In this case, will there be a responsibility on the local authority to issue a renewal notice in order for the householder to comply?

I checked during the lunch break and found that there is a pre-existing charge in Northern Ireland under the Water Act 1999. The application fee was increased from £110 to £115. There is an EU-imposed charge of £15 in Northern Ireland, which is the registration fee. Would that indicate that the fee in Northern Ireland is approximately €30 less than the one proposed here?

As regards Deputy Bannon's question, the registration charge is £115 sterling, not £15.

That is what I said.

That is the equivalent of about €150.

Is there not a second charge of £15?

Is the registration fee £115?

In Northern Ireland, there is a £31 fee if people sell their house, in order to update the records.

As regards Deputy Ó Cuív's question, the ECJ judgment provides for an inspection and monitoring regime to be introduced to deal with issues relating to public health and the environment. The criteria laid down therefore would be "Are you in compliance with the standards of public health and the environment, and is the septic tank working to that effect?" The notion Deputy Ó Cuív has been trying to portray is that we will have to have the 2009 EPA standards, but that is not the case.

What are the standards?

The standards will be drawn up by the EPA, the local authority and the inspection plan to ensure that we are not putting in any particular installation that would pose a risk to public health and the environment. The regulations will do that.

Deputy Naughten referred to registration renewal notices, and there will be such a notice five years afterwards. The only time people will be asked to produce evidence is if, in the opinion of the local authority, they are not registered. The local authority will have a central register and there will also be a national register. People will pick up information anecdotally as they go about their business and if people are deemed not to be registered, they will be asked to produce a certificate. If they lose the certificate, a duplicate will be available free of charge.

It is a bit like the television licence.

Is there a legal responsibility on the local authority to issue a renewal notice? This has been an issue in the past concerning driving licences. If the legal responsibility is not with the local authority, householders could inadvertently be in breach of the legislation through no fault of their own.

I agree with the Deputy that that has been an issue in the past. I will ensure that it is clarified in the regulations and that there will be an onus on the local authority to ensure there is a renewal notice.

The point about the North has been mentioned but we need to take into consideration that there is a free desludging service there. Given what has been said about contractors emptying septic tanks, the cost of desludging will be far more expensive here.

The Minister said that the standards will be set out by the EPA and local authorities. Many houses built before the mid-1990s had nothing except a square tank with a pipe. If a regulation is brought in with one line in it, they will not pass it. We need to know exactly what those standards are before we proceed any further. We will go through this Bill, which will be passed, but our amendments will be defeated. Have Government Deputies been made aware of what the standards will be? If not, they are voting through something even though they are not sure of what it is.

Before lunchtime, Deputy Ó Cuív - or was it Deputy Stanley? - made a proposal, in view of the fact that this Bill will run into the new year, to park proceedings and bring in the EPA and possibly a representative of the EU's environment directive. Let us thus inform ourselves fully of what exact standards will apply. It is important because there is a black hole in this legislation and we do not know what we are buying into. We must make a decision based on full information. The agency is there to do that.

Is the Deputy formally moving that proposal?

Okay. Will the Deputy give us the proposal for the clerk to record?

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share