Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Oct 2004

Vol. 589 No. 4

Water Services Bill 2003 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

I warmly welcome this Bill. It is designed to modernise and manage water supply and distribution systems and it is a welcome measure. However, there is insufficient emphasis on sustainability, water conservation and water quality in the Bill so substantial reforms will have to be made to it to make it acceptable from the Green Party's point of view.

We would prefer a demand management led approach to this matter, twinned with support and incentives to encourage conservation and reuse. We are disturbed there is an emphasis in the Bill on simply meeting demand as it increases rather than on examining the reasons for demand increasing and ways in which we can limit that demand and control and conserve water supplies. We are pleased with the European water framework directive and decision making at local level regarding water should be informed by that directive and undertaken with a river basin approach.

A conservation ethos of placing new emphasis on efficiency is necessary to save the Government and the taxpayer millions of euro. There should be proposals to reduce pollution at source, in the home and in industry. It is much more efficient, and far cheaper in the long run, to pre-empt and prevent pollution. Water quality also demands a new and urgent approach to policy, given the potentially serious implications for the health of consumers. Only a steep change in existing remedial policy to address water quality standards will succeed in reversing current trends with their potential consequences for human health. As the Friends of the Irish Environment have pointed out, Irish measures to improve water quality are fundamentally misguided.

Successive Governments have allocated massive funding for end of pipe solutions based on high cost engineering and damaging chemicals while the nitrates directive remains unenforced and dispersed rural septic tanks continue to proliferate. There should be use of separation techniques, such as dual piping systems in new buildings where pure water is used for drinking and washing and grey water is used for other needs within the home. There is insufficient mention of this in the Bill. Grey water could be used for showers, sinks, dishwashers, baths and washing machines. Indeed, roof collectors for water could be used in new homes and the building regulations could be changed to reflect this. The Bill should encourage this as well.

The Green Party would like to see a new emphasis on the quality of drinking water. The removal of fluoride should be discussed in the context of the Bill. Sadly, however, there is insufficient emphasis on this and on the repeal of the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act 1960. There should also be an approach to wetlands. The Worldwide Fund for Nature pointed out that Ireland currently has no overall plan or strategy specifically aimed at the conservation of wetlands, although some peatlands are considered for restoration in certain areas. However, wetlands, their role in the water cycle and the functioning of aquatic systems should be included in this Bill.

The Green Party seeks an overall ban on the use of phosphates in washing powders and enforcement of the ban. Phosphates are still making their way into the detergent market in Ireland. All future water management decisions should be climate proofed. In other words, they should anticipate the possible changes in climate that Ireland will experience over coming decades and ensure that those changes are managed. We are concerned at the widespread use of septic tanks in Ireland. Of the planning permission given for new homes, over a third of the homes are running on stand-alone septic tank systems. This is storing up problems for the future. There should be greater emphasis on alternative methods of treating sewage, such as reed bed systems. These are not given enough attention in the Bill.

The traditional approach to draining development areas has a damaging effect on the environment and is unsustainable. It also contributes to a higher risk of flooding in urban areas. There is an approach called the sustainable urban drainage systems, SUDS, which offers a wide range of techniques for new and redeveloped sites to yield a reduced environmental impact from surface water drainage. At a simple level it means, if possible, avoiding putting down large slabs of concrete or tarmacadam to reduce the risk of flash flooding.

A contributory factor in the floods experienced two years ago in the River Tolka catchment area was the massive amount of urbanisation within that area. If there was a sustainable approach to managing new housing, some of the difficulties that arose could have been avoided. There should be greater recognition of supply side measures in Part 3 of the Bill. Items such as low flush toilets, showers, controlled flow taps and rain water recycling can and should be mentioned in detail in the Bill.

I wish to mention some of the difficulties experienced by the Geological Survey of Ireland. The ban on public service recruitment has led to serious understaffing in the GSI and its ground water protection scheme has been suspended due to a chronic lack of resources. That is a matter of serious concern because, unless we can estimate the damage being done to ground waters, we cannot plan for their future. Given the scale of urbanisation and new home construction in the past five to ten years, we should control this more closely.

We would like to see fairly radical changes in the Bill. Given that water management controls such a high proportion of our budget, we believe there should be greater emphasis on water conservation. I note that certain water conservation measures looking at leaks and wastage in Dublin have reduced leaks from 42.5% to 29%. However, we do not believe that goes far enough and that the high level of wastage and leakage in the Dublin water supply shows that we are undervaluing this resource. We would hate to see plans put in place to extract and to pipe water from either the River Boyne or the River Shannon catchment areas all the way to Dublin. We believe the energy that would be used in such a project would not be sustainable. Instead, we should put the emphasis on water conservation.

We are disturbed there has not been 100% water metering on commercial usage at this stage because we believe such a measure should be moving more quickly than it is. We would like to see that completed this year rather than in a few years' time. In urban areas, we would like to see complete segregation of storm water from sewage. That has not happened and it means our rivers, streams and the open sea become heavily polluted at times of heavy rainfall. It should not be the case that people are advised not to swim after periods of heavy rainfall and we should work harder to achieve that separation in towns, villages and urban areas.

We welcome the legislation and believe the word "sustainable" should be incorporated into the heads of the Bill in the same way as it was incorporated into the Planning and Development Act 2000 because it would reflect the mainstreaming of sustainability in this vital area.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Cooper-Flynn.

I take this opportunity to congratulate Deputy Batt O'Keeffe on his promotion to Minister of State. He will have a successful tenure in that position. He is a Deputy of outstanding ability. Previously he served as Chairman of the Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children and having served with him on that committee, I know how able he is. I wish him well in his new job.

I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. As we all know, water is an essential component of life. We are all too familiar with the horrific scenes that sometimes fill our television screens when drought affects a country. We live in a country that is blessed with a temperate climate. Nevertheless, despite all the rain we have, the provision of a clean, pure supply of drinking water and the safe treatment of our waste water is something we cannot take for granted.

It is only in the past ten to 15 years that serious steps have been taken to invest in and upgrade our water supplies. Legislation covering this field has been piecemeal and built up over many years. Some of it dates back to Victorian times, such as the Public Health (Ireland) Act 1878. It is time all this legislation was put on a modern footing and this Bill sets about doing so.

This is complex legislation running to more than 105 pages, so in the limited time available to me, I will deal with a few specific points. I am delighted the old-fashioned title "sanitary services" will be replaced with the much more easily understood and more appropriate title "water services". To me, sanitary services, conjures up images of toilets and such places and while the disposal of waste water is an important aspect of water services, it is by no means the only aspect. This Bill deals with the management of water from its arrival in a pipe to its eventual discharge as treated waste water. It does not deal with the production of water, that is, its preparation and treatment before it comes into the pipes. That we can leave for another day.

I welcome the establishment of new water services authorities which will be based on the county council or city council model. They have two very important functions: to provide water within their own jurisdictions and to be responsible for the supervision of water when it is not supplied directly by the water service authority. This will be done under a licensing process. An important role of the authority, which I warmly welcome, is that it can directly intervene to assist with the development or delivery of a service when that service encounters operational problems. This is something that cannot happen at present. If the users of a scheme encounter problems, which sometimes happens, usually through no fault of the management of the scheme, this new authority can take over the running of the scheme on a temporary basis until the problem is rectified. The end result is that the users of the scheme, that is, members of the public, will be assured of quality drinking water.

These new authorities are obliged to develop a strategic six year plan which must be approved by the Minister. Many county councils already have the basis of such a plan in place but now it is being put on a statutory basis. Again, this will be of great benefit to the public.

I will now address a few specific points in the Bill. In Part 2, section 43(4) is important as it gives the new authority the power to investigate the condition of water connections and, if necessary, to carry out repairs to them. This will help to control and minimise leakage, a problem that is widespread and leads to a substantial loss of water. Part 2, section 49, deals with the responsibility of the authority to record the location of all service connections and to make this record available to members of the public if they so wish. Some schemes are very old and where water pipes run is sometimes not known. As a result, during construction of new buildings and roads, burst water mains can occur. This section should ensure that such disruption of water supply to the public is kept to a minimum.

In Part 2, section 51 is one of the most important sections in the Bill and one which will have significant ramifications. Under this section, the authority can interrupt the supply of water or waste water where there is a risk to human health or the environment. That is right and proper. However, the really interesting part of the legislation is section 51(4)(b) which states that the water services authority shall “arrange for the provision to the user or users concerned of an appropriate alternative supply of drinking water for domestic purposes where the service interruption exceeds 24 hours.” My understanding of this subsection is that where the supply of household water is unfit to drink, it will be the responsibility of the new water services authority to supply an alternative source of water after 24 hours. Unfortunately, some of the water supplied in some water schemes can be unfit to drink on a temporary basis usually because it becomes infected with various pathogens such as certain types of e.coli. If there is a risk to human health, it will be the responsibility of the water services authority to supply an alternative source of domestic water if the problem is not rectified in 24 hours. This is a major step forward in protecting the health of the public and is one of the most radical and progressive steps in this Bill.

I note in section 56 of Part 3 that the water services authority has the power to direct the owner of a premises to take corrective action where there is excessive wastage or consumption of water. The amount of water that a household or commercial premises is using can only be determined if there is metering of the water supply. We do not have an infinite supply of water so any steps that can be taken to counteract excessive wastage or leakage are steps in the right direction.

With particular reference to section 56, I warmly welcome the commitment made by the Minister in the Dáil last night that metering of water supplies would not lead to charging for water. Much play has been made by some Opposition Members on this point. However, the Minister was definite and unequivocal. Last night he said:

The Bill is not a Trojan horse for domestic charges. Such charges are specifically prohibited under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1997.

He could not be more clear or definite. This Bill will not lead to the introduction of charges for domestic water. I welcome what the Minister said when he introduced the Bill. There are many other aspects of the Bill which I would like to refer to but, unfortunately, time does not allow. I welcome this important legislation and congratulate the Minister and Minister of State on bringing it to the House. I commend the Bill to the House.

I thank Deputy Devins for sharing time with me. I congratulate the new Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, on being elevated to such high office. It is very nice to see him acting in his ministerial capacity today.

One would have to welcome this Bill. Any Bill that intends to update legislation that is over 120 years old has to be a very good thing. Going back to May of this year, I note that there is a significant programme of investment in water by the Government under the national development plan. The Government has invested €4.4 billion for the years 2000-06. This major investment in the provision of proper water services is recognition of its importance by the Government and for that reason the Bill is particularly timely.

Some 2,500 group water schemes service 145,000 households. County Mayo has one of the largest numbers of group water schemes in operation. Water quality, quantity and access to it is a matter of particular concern to me. It may be coincidental, but a constituent of mine came to me this week who had concerns about her water supply. She is a single mother of a number of children who is on a group water scheme. It is important to illustrate the difficulties she has had in terms of her water supply. In the past week her water was switched off on five different occasions without any notification. Two mornings out of seven she had no shower facility and on most days the colour of the water was brown which gave rise to concerns about quality. The reason I recount this story is that I would like to get some reassurance from the Minister that the provisions in the Bill would assist such a person.

Deputy Devins referred to the rights of consumers which is also an area on which I intend to focus. I wish to consider whether the Bill offers consumers better protection. Every individual household should have access to decent quality water. It is not unreasonable to expect that if one's water supply is to be switched off notification would be given. I welcome the provision in the Bill that if the water supply is off for a period of 24 hours or more it is up to the local authority to step in and make sure that people have access to water. That is an important development.

The Minister stated that in some ways one might think the Bill is stacked against the consumer. One could be excused for getting that impression. This is a point to which I will return later. I welcome the provision in section 32(3) which enables the Minister to make regulations on procedures for dealing with consumer complaints. However, section 29 provides for immunity from proceedings for damages arising from the non-performance of functions of the Minister, a water services authority or other prescribed person in regard to a restriction of water services in accordance with the legislation. We would like to think the Bill will improve the country's water services, yet immunity is given to the person who is in charge of the provision of water, local authorities and licensed group water schemes.

Section 34 enables the Minister to issue guidelines or codes of practice in relation to the provision of water services or the performance of functions under the legislation. Section 35 states that failure to comply with the guidelines or codes of practice issued under section 34 is not an offence. Immunity from prosecution is offered to the Minister who can issue guidelines and codes of practice although non-compliance with them is not an offence in any event. I highlight these sections because my concern is for the end-user, whether the householder is getting access to water and the water available is of good quality.

What can people do if they do not have access to a water supply or the supply is inadequate? Do they have recourse to the courts? Who can they prosecute if there is a failure? Local authorities will now be in a position to license group water schemes, which is, obviously, an important development. Trustees of group water schemes had an unenviable task and provided a very valuable service, particularly in rural Ireland where there would be no provision of water in many cases in the absence of group water schemes. However, there needs to be an improvement in the administration of these schemes. I welcome the fact that local authorities will now have to license them and monitor the quality of water available to householders. In my experience, most local authorities are extremely hard pressed in terms of staffing levels and I am curious as to what provision will be put in place by the Department to increase staff numbers so that local authorities will be in a position to monitor group water schemes on an ongoing basis.

While I recognise the opportunity for complaint in the Bill, I question the protection offered to individual householders. One could be unfortunate to be at the end of a pipeline in a group water scheme and get a very bad service while 80% of people on the scheme might do fine. Where is the line drawn and how can such people be protected?

I welcome the general thrust of the Bill and the fact that it updates legislation that has been in place for 120 years. The Bill is focused, dealing specifically with water in the pipe. It establishes a modern legislative code governing functions, standards, obligations and practice in respect of the planning, management and delivery of water supplies and the collection and treatment of waste water.

Section 30 places a duty on the Minister to facilitate the provision of safe and efficient water services infrastructure. That reads very well until one gets to section 39 which gives the Minister immunity from prosecution. While there is much that is good in the Bill I question whether the necessary teeth are there to ensure the job is carried out properly. If there is one thing we should aspire to it is that every single household should have a decent water supply. While protections are built into the Bill there is no guarantee that every single household in the country is guaranteed an adequate water supply, or any water supply.

I also wish to raise with the Minister the issue of the water services strategic plan to be carried out by water services authorities. It is important that strategic plans would be updated every six years. These plans require departmental approval. Having recently been a member of a local authority I find it disappointing that this is an executive function and that local authority members have no hand, act or part in drawing up strategic plans. It does not go before the local authority for approval and no public consultation is required.

The Minister of State is a former member of a local authority, so he will be conscious that it is the public representative in the locality who gets the blame when something goes wrong. At a time when we are trying to promote better local government, it is a backward step that local authority members now have no role to play when it comes to formulating this plan. This might be something that could be addressed on Committee Stage or possibly through amendment. It is important to involve local authority members in strategic planning. How else are they to have any say in how water services affect the individual householder? I do not want to appear negative because there is a great deal of good in the Bill. That has been articulated already by many contributors. If the Bill had more teeth, however, and there was greater participation by local authority members, I would be much more content.

With that, I wish the Minister of State every success in his job. I know he is more than able for the task. We look forward to hearing what he has to say on this in the future.

I also congratulate Deputy Batt O'Keeffe on his elevation to the second bench as a Minister of State. It is a much deserved promotion and will leave a vacancy in thechairmanship of the Joint Committee on Health and Children that some of the disappointed backbenchers may look forward to filling, shortly. It is always nice to see the level of co-operation that exists between the main party in Government and Deputy Cooper-Flynn in the sharing of time with her former colleagues. I certainly agree with that Deputy's final remarks about this being a managerial rather than a reserved function. It is the third or fourth example of the erosion of local authority powers in the time of this Government. I am one of the long-serving members of a local authority who very much opposed the abolition of the dual mandate and I have suffered from that along with other Members of this House. It was a retrograde step because there will soon be nobody in this House to defend the rights of local authority members. Their functions are constantly being eroded by this Government and specifically in this case by, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The Bill is concerned only with the provision of water and does not deal directly with water quality or related environmental issues. It is impossible to separate those two matters, however, because if there is not clean water, it cannot be put into pipes for public consumption. The explanatory memorandum states:

The Bill concerns itself only with the actual provision of water services. It does not seek directly to take on board wider environmental issues surrounding water resources (pollution control; water quality in its broadest sense; river basin management, etc. although it complements the relevant legislative codes in this regard. To appreciate the overall thrust of the Bill therefore, it is helpful to visualise its application as pertaining to management of "water in the pipe", i.e., from the time, following abstraction, that it first enters a supply pipe to the point of its subsequent discharge again to the environment as treated waste water.

It is no good having a Bill that will deal with water in the pipe because one cannot separate matters that affect the quality of the water either by discharge or entry into the pipes. I regret that the Bill does not address that.

The central aims of the Bill are to facilitate a more coherent expression of the law as it relates to water services by means of a single enactment which would represent a comprehensive legal framework; develop a modern and progressive approach in the sustainable management of water services; strengthen administrative arrangements for planning the delivery of water services at local and national level; and introduce a new licensing system and regulatory framework for group water services schemes, to assist in their development, and to address water quality problems in this sector.

Again, water quality problems may not be addressed without looking at the quality of the water before it enters the pipes. Will the Minister of State say whether the necessary finance will be made available to local authorities now that a water service authority must be set up. Will the necessary extra finance be made available to the local authorities to provide the necessary staff to deal with these matters? This is going to be a major problem. As it states in one section of the Bill, if a water supply is deemed to be inadequate or polluted, the water services authority must supply an alternative source within 24 hours to the group scheme, village or townland affected. There are cases in my constituency of Galway West, for example, in the summer time in Carraroe, where the water may not be drunk. Does this mean that the residents there will be guaranteed an adequate supply of drinking water within 24 hours if the supply has been deemed unsuitable for their consumption? That is an important area I would like the Minister of State to address.

The former Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, told the Seanad:

There is nothing in the Water Services Bill which is intended to launch water services policy on a course towards privatisation. The Bill is drafted with a view to retaining the status quo and to providing the necessary supports to foster the development of current arrangements into a top class service. Privatisation of water services would require significant additional legislation to give the necessary powers to an independent regulator and is not on the agenda of this Bill.

That is all very well. Despite what the previous Minister told the Seanad, I am concerned that the Bill will pave the way for the privatisation of Ireland's water supply. I am particularly concerned about that because I find it hard to accept, to take at face value what the previous Minister said. I dealt with him on the Committee Stage of the Bill dealing with electronic voting and we saw where that ended up. It is difficult to trust this Government on the evidence because it has broken almost every promise it made in the previous general election. It is difficult to accept further promises it might make between now and the next general election. It would probably not be many, but I fear if the Government parties get back to power after the next general election, they may start down that road.

The Bill deals with metering of premises. Most people whose premises are metered bear the brunt of increases on an annual and local basis. There is obviously no respite in the Bill for these people. As a nation we can be critical of EU directives, but those affecting the environment, particularly in regard to the quality of drinking water and waste water treatment, have transformed the way we think about these issues. They will serve the country well by ensuring greater care, management and accountability on environment issues in future.

Water services authorities, as they are termed, seem to be packaged in such a way that they can easily be cut off from the umbrella of the local authority. It is this definition of functions and powers that leads me to question whether the ultimate goal of the Government is the privatisation of the water supply and its management.

The Environmental Protection Agency published a series of reports on water services this year. Among its key findings were that drinking water quality is improving, and that the compliance rate for faecal coliforms, which is the most important indicator of drinking water quality, is improving in both public water supplies and group water schemes. However, the overall quality of drinking water supplied by group water schemes remains unsatisfactory. That is from the report of the EPA. If we are serious about the good quality of water in pipes as envisaged in this Bill, then we should phase out the chemical treatment of water and concentrate our efforts on protecting the source of the water. That is the key requirement, rather than chemically treating water, but that can only be achieved by a reduction of the nutrient loading of our lakes and waterways. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, our lakes meet the standards as laid down, but that does not correspond with what I see and what has been shown to me.

Last week, a public meeting was held in Oughterard about the deteriorating quality of the Corrib water system. In my own constituency, for example, the Owenriff river is fed from the lakes around Maam Cross. It flows through Oughterard and into the Corrib outside Oughterard. The Owenriff river is one of the most important rivers in Ireland because of the presence of pearl mussels, which are protected under the habitats directive. The Owenriff river is one of the few remaining rivers with a live population of pearl mussels but all is not well on the river. Recently, there was a presence of algae on the river and this year a survey found that all juvenile mussels, that is, up to three or four years, had been wiped out. That is serious because the Owenriff river flows directly into the Corrib and the pollution of that river will have an effect on the quality of water in the Corrib lake. The Corrib lake is one of the most important sources of clean water supply to all of Galway city and a large part of Galway county, stretching from Oughterard to Killanin, Moycullen, Annaghdown, Headford, Claregalway, Oranmore, Clarinbridge and the surrounding areas. The water supply for all those areas, including Galway city which has a population of 70,000, comes from the Corrib and if the Corrib becomes polluted, the water supply to the city and almost half the county would be wiped out. We should protect the source of our drinking water rather than continuously using chemicals to treat water entering our pipes.

I quote from a report of a paper presented by Mr. John Hanily, principal environmental health officer of the Western Health Board, to a conference in Dublin some years ago. It states:

Alarming levels of chlorine found in the public water supply in the Western Health Board region have prompted calls for a national survey of drinking water and more transparency at local authority level.

A recent pilot survey of public water supplies in the Western Health Board region revealed that almost 70 per cent of the samples had unsatisfactory levels of chlorine. Some supplies had a 100 per cent unsatisfactory level of chlorine, and others had the same level of chlorine as a swimming pool.

The survey, which was carried out over a nine month period last year, comprised over 600 samples taken from 21 water supplies.

Speaking at a conference in Dublin, John Hanily, Principal Environmental Health Officer with the WHB, said that these levels may reflect a national problem arising from excess use of chlorine as a disinfectant and he has called for a nationwide survey of drinking water.

Chlorine is used by all local authorities to disinfect drinking water and is widely recognised as the most effective way to do so, according to Mr. Hanily. Health boards were responsible for the monitoring of chlorine levels, but as of last year this responsibility was passed back to local authorities. [I presume it will now be passed on to the Water Services Authority and not even members of local authorities will have an opportunity of questioning the matter.]

Mr. Hanily said that he had concerns about the implications of such self-regulation and said that it is time local authorities came out of the closet and provided the public with regular and comprehensive information on the quality and content of our drinking water.

That is very strong talk. We will now hand this responsibility over to the Water Services Authority, thereby preventing the local authority and the elected members raising the matter or having an input into it. The report further states:

There are no guidelines in relation to the addition of chlorine to the water supply except the stipulation that chlorine in drinking water must be monitored with regard to public health requirements.

Mr. Hanily said that concerns were being expressed in the scientific community over the levels of chlorine compounds being used to disinfect drinking water. Excessive chlorification is the cause of the presence of chlorination by-products in the water supply. It is these by-products which potentially cause adverse health effects.

I understand the Government has set up a western river basement project to investigate the water sources in the western region. I understand ESB International are the appointed consultants and that the project will cost €8 million. My information also is that the project will not be completed until 2015. That is much too long a delay and perhaps too late to save our lakes, waterways and drinking water. Action needs to be taken immediately in many cases. Surveys or investigative projects do not solve problems. Only action will solve problems. I will give an example of that.

In 1995, following the serious flooding in south Galway, the Department initiated an investigation which cost more than £1 million. Despite the publication of a detailed report, not one spade will be put in the ground in south Galway because the flood relief programme for the area has been abandoned. I was proud to have been involved in an unofficial small relief drainage scheme following the 1995 flooding, which alleviated flooding in nine houses, a nursing home and a school, at a cost of £125,000. The same scheme was estimated by the Department to cost £1.5 million, yet there has not been flooding in that area since. That is an example of action, not words, and that is what I advocate the Minister should take.

According to the Exchequer return figures published on Monday, the Minister of State's Department, or at least the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government — I do not know what portfolio the Minister of State has but I believe it is that Department — underspent its budget by €650 million. How much clean water could be provided for that amount of money? Would it not provide a sewerage scheme in the many small towns and villages where water sources are polluted or inadequate? I speak of villages like Carraroe, where the water supply collapsed during the summer because of sewerage problems, and the Galway Gaeltacht where thousands of children from all areas of the country take Irish classes. Other villages like Roundstone, Clifden, Leenane, Cornamona and Clonbur — I could continue naming villages in my own constituency — have either no sewage treatment facilities or very inadequate ones.

Will the Minister of State inform the House when replying whether he will spend that €650 million on providing sewerage schemes in those small towns and villages, which would alleviate their water contamination problems, rather than saving that money, which I believe is a deliberate policy? I do not blame the Minister of State for that; he was not in Government at the time. I blame his party for saving €650 million in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Several hundred million euro was saved in other areas as well, making a total of more than €1 billion in savings. That money is being saved this year and the following year to provide a slush fund and the appearance of a great deal of money being spent in the run-up to the general election. That is a false economy. That money should be released now and used to provide sewerage schemes in the small villages and towns in my constituency and elsewhere, and that work could be carried out much more economically now. Instead the Government is saving it for a few years so that it will have a splash of money before the general election. That is politics at its worst. People might ask us why we say that but our job in Opposition is to expose what is going on at that level. It is a scandal to which I will return at every opportunity because so much money has been put aside this year and not spent on the essential schemes. It is being saved for a slush fund for the general election to try to re-elect this staggering Government.

Approximately 70% of urban waste water receives secondary treatment and nearly two thirds of secondary waste water treatment plants fail to comply with one or more of the standards during the reporting period. Corrective action programmes are needed for treatment plants consistently in breach of standards. Procedures for the use of sewage sludge in agriculture need to be consistently implemented. The decline in the number of river stations of the highest biological water quality is a serious cause of concern. One third of all river stations do not comply with the targets. Meeting targets set by the phosphorus regulation will continue to be a major challenge. Local authorities are putting in place a range of measures to tackle water quality problems and it will take years before the success of those measures is determined.

The EPA noted that the quantity deficiency in group water schemes mainly resides with private schemes, those responsible for the abstraction and distribution of drinking water. Those schemes provide water for approximately 140,000 houses. The Minister is aware that raw sewage is still entering rivers and seas, which is a disgrace. In his response to this debate he should set out when it is envisaged that we will have sufficient water treatment plants to prevent raw sewage entering the waterways. That is the key to what the Minister will do, particularly given the €650 million underspent this year in providing small sewerage schemes to protect the waterways in the towns and villages I have mentioned. It is necessary also to protect drinking water for the population which depends on a clean water supply and expects clean drinking water to come from its taps rather than having to buy bottled water as many do.

I congratulate Deputy Killeen on his appointment as Minister of State at the Department for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and I wish him every success in his new post.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill because it is deficient in many respects. It is disappointing that such a large Bill ignores many key elements that should have been included. I have several concerns about some of its contents. It is pointless to talk about this legislation unless there is a budget to support it. There is no point giving local authorities responsibility for water services unless the funding is made available to deliver appropriate services and standards. It is disgraceful that the Department has underspent €650 million on projects and the capital budget. There are inadequate water supplies around the country yet there is a large budget which seems to be gathering dust rather than being spent.

There are serious delays in planning projects. Value for money is supposed to be a mantra of this Government but it takes a minimum of five years for water services projects to be approved. The process is a paper trail and there is a crazy amount of red tape and bureaucracy involved in water-related capital projects. The only comparison is the pathetic building unit in the Department of Education and Science which is tied up in paperwork and bureaucracy. For example, in south County Roscommon we have been waiting 13 years for the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government to approve an upgrade to our water scheme. The largest single water supply in the county supplies a major pharmaceutical company and the flagship tourism project in the county with water that is consistently brown. That is not useful to a pharmaceutical company and it certainly does not encourage tourists to return to County Roscommon. There is no major tourism sector in the county and we need every tourist we can get and want to encourage them to return.

I am disappointed that the Bill covers only water in the pipe and not the overall issues such as river basement management. I am surprised that this is not included in the legislation because the Minister responsible for publishing the Bill and steering it through the Seanad, Deputy Cullen, when he was Minister of State in the Department of Finance said on 18 April 2000 that this was a priority of his. At the time we were debating the River Shannon and the need for some type of co-ordination for the 30 agencies involved in managing and controlling that river, whether dealing with pollution or water levels. The Shannon is a major source for water supply and an outlet for water treatment facilities yet nothing has been done about this. It is interesting to read Deputy Cullen's comments at that point because he urged a co-ordinated approach to water management and said that river basement management plans are a critical element in that. He said that he was trying to accelerate the pace of these developments to address the issues of surface water, estuarine and coastal waters and ground water yet it is ignored in this Bill.

Deputy Killeen knows that we need some type of co-ordination of water levels and quality in the River Shannon, and for tourism. The Shannon is sadly a barrier to tourism and designates boundaries on tourism areas rather than being an asset which, with its catchment, can be promoted. If there was some type of co-ordination between the 30 agencies and local authorities in this Bill we could bring them together to develop the tourism brief as well.

I am also disappointed that the Bill does not include water quality. Throughout the country there is a substantial amount of asbestos piping which feeds many water supplies but there is no budget made available for refurbishing the pipes, or replacing them with safer ones. Many people are not aware that most of the water they drink comes from asbestos pipes. This is ignored in this legislation, as is the issue of eutrophication and over-enrichment of many water supplies coming from water courses or lakes. The Minister may say in his response that the nitrates directive will solve this but it will not. When Roscommon County Council conducted a survey of the upper Shannon catchment area and pollution in Loughrea and Lough Derg, one might have expected that farming would make a major impact because of the limestone-based soil and the quantity of ground water.

The largest polluter was the local authority because it had not been given the resources to upgrade its waste water facilities throughout the county. Farming was not a contributing factor to the pollution entering the River Shannon from County Roscommon, more of which — approximately 75 miles — borders the river than any other county. The farming community in my county was not responsible, to any great extent, for the pollution of the Shannon but the Minister still came before the House and stated that the nitrates directive would solve the problem. The €650 million that lies gathering dust in the Department is the cause of much of the pollution in the River Shannon.

I welcome the fact the Bill will put some form of co-ordination into place. However, I have serious concerns about some of its contents. For example, it will introduce a new licensing system and regulatory framework for group water schemes. While this is a positive development, in reality local authorities are being instructed by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to bundle group water schemes together — perhaps 12 to 14 at a time — and seek a public private partnership to carry out the upgrading works required on them.

There appears to be a major anomaly as regards the type of charges that will be put in place by private operators. Initially, there was to be a charge on an ongoing basis for the duration of the 20-year contract regarding the treatment of potable water or waste water. What will happen, however, if a company decides in a couple of years' time to establish a business within 500 yards of an existing water supply? It will have no choice other than to deal with the private operator that is in place, which will be able to charge whatever it likes in terms of providing an extension and enhancing the capacity of the overall scheme.

We are leaving ourselves open to abuse in a way that is similar to what happened with the M50 toll bridge. When the latter was built, we thought we had obtained a good deal. However, the bridge turned out to a cash cow for the private operators. The bundling together of group water schemes and awarding design, build and operate contracts to private contractors could result in their being major cash cows for many of those contractors. A small number of operators will become involved in this type of project and they will dictate and control the charges at some future date. This is particularly apparent when one considers the plans under Part 5 in respect of metering. That gives rise to major concerns on my part regarding the possibility of the reintroduction of water charges in one way or another, be it through the private operator through the design, build and operate procedure or through the local authorities. One can rest assured that for a small operator using very little water, a significant minimum charge will be put in place. Penalties will then be loaded on to people who have a sizeable demand for water.

If one considers this matter in the context of businesses, particularly those of the smaller variety, that water charge, in conjunction with the large scale charges planned in respect of waste water, will become a stealth tax on employment in many rural communities, the water supplies of which, whether in terms of potable water or waste water treatment, are not developed to the extent that they should be at this stage. There has been a significant lack of development in County Roscommon in terms of potable water and waste water treatment in recent years. We are now going to tie ourselves into a situation where there will be private contractors working under the design, build and operate model, while charges will be introduced in respect of the development of waste water schemes. This could all lead to significant taxes being placed on employment and small businesses in counties such as Roscommon.

Charges have already been put in place in respect of first-time buyers who are bearing the brunt, through the mechanism of development charges, of the cost of many of the major infrastructural schemes that are currently in train. Young people are going to have to pay for the water services not only of this generation but those of future generations. It is unfair that one element of the population should have to carry the can for the lack of investment over a long period. Rather than the responsibility lying with the Government regarding the huge underspend that has occurred due to the lack of resources provided to local authorities, young people and businesses, particularly of the smaller variety, will be obliged to foot the bill in the future.

I wish to raise a number of issues in respect of the Bill. I note that a new duty of care provision is being put in place which specifies responsibilities on owners and occupiers of premises in respect of the conservation of water supplies and the avoidance of risk to public health or the environment. I hope owners and occupiers will be made fully aware of these risks and that a situation will not arise where local authorities will impose severe fines on them without their being made aware of what will be involved when the legislation is enacted. There is an onus on the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to ensure people are made fully aware of the impact of the provision to which I refer.

Will the Minister elaborate on the impact this will have on insurance costs, particularly those relating to businesses? Businesses and owner-occupiers will be obliged to ensure that they have adequate insurance to cover any risk that may be associated with this new responsibility. This will give public liability insurers another opportunity to hike up charges again. It is important that the full implications of this responsibility are considered.

In conjunction with metering and the duty of care, I hope that another element of the Bill will address the problem of the many leaks in our water system. These leaks are causing major problems as regards demand. There is no doubt that significant abuses of our water services, particularly in terms of potable water, are taking place in areas where there are major leaks. This is relevant not only to owner-occupiers but to the local authorities. The latter will have to take some of the onus and responsibility in respect of leaks. I will not be the most popular person for saying so but we need to consider, as is the case with litter, introducing on-the-spot fines for leaks. There is a massive cost involved in trying to enhance or secure water supplies. There have been significant abuses by some owner-occupiers as regards leaks.

If we introduced an on-the-spot system of fines, it would focus many people's minds on this matter. Some of the leaks to which I refer can be caused by a worn out washer which it would only cost 40 or 50 cent to remedy. However, people ignore such leaks for years. I recently spoke to an overseer who is involved in water service provision for Roscommon County Council who informed me that there are literally lakes of water lying around the county — I am sure the position is the same in every other county — because people have failed, for example, to replace washers in drinking troughs. If a fine of €125 or €127 was introduced, it would focus people's minds and ensure they did not ignore leaks. This would help avoid the need for metering in many instances.

One aspect of Part 4 of the Bill is the licensing of trade effluent discharges into sewers. This will place a considerable onus on water laboratories in many local authorities. What resources will be made available to enhance and upgrade these laboratories? While Roscommon County Council's was upgraded with EU co-financing, many local authorities have very poor water supplies at the moment.

Section 43 gives rise for concern. It enables the water services authority at its discretion to provide or take in charge a service connection. Existing planning legislation allows a local authority to abdicate its responsibility for taking in charge the State's water and sewer pipes. Many local authorities are washing their hands of this. Even though powers exist and people can sign petitions forcing the local authority to take in charge water supplies, sewers, roads etc., in reality no funding is available to ensure they are brought up to an acceptable standard and the local authority has no onus to do so even though it was at fault in not policing the developers in the first instance to ensure that services of an acceptable standard were put in.

Until a developer can provide documentary evidence that its water and sewerage services are up to an acceptable standard, the local authority should refuse a connection to the public sewer and water main. Developers are selling off houses and abdicating responsibility for completing services. If they were unable to get the water connection in the first instance, they would have to ensure the services were brought up to the proper standard before the occupants moved into their houses. This small amendment could help to resolve a significant problem with some cowboy developers.

I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, on his appointment and wish him well. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation. As the Minister said, this is the first root and branch upgrading of the legislation in more than 120 years. It is a pity it does not go the whole hog and deal with all the issues involved, particularly such matters as water quality, water pollution, river basin management etc. An opportunity has been missed. Given that it has taken us 120 years to upgrade the legislation, we should do so in a comprehensive manner. I am disappointed this has not been done.

The Bill, like many others coming before us, fails to address the issue of finance. If the provisions of this legislation are to mean anything in practice, the availability of finance is fundamental. This matter should be addressed on Committee Stage and the Minister should table amendments in this regard. While this is not unusual and I disagree with it, I would like to see it rectified during the passage of the Bill.

A number of areas in the Bill concern me. In his speech yesterday the Minister tried to assure us by saying:

I stress that the Bill before the House does not provide for or facilitate the re-introduction of domestic water charges. The Government's position on water charges is not changed in any way by this Bill. The Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1997, which specifically precludes charging for domestic water services, remains in force and will continue to apply after the Bill has been enacted.

This is all very well. However, we all know the record of the Government is that such an assurance is not worth the paper on which it is written. Every page of another document, An Agreed Programme for Government, contains such assurances, which have not been acted upon. We simply cannot trust the Government in maintaining that domestic water charges will not be reintroduced.

Not long after the re-election of the Government in 2002 the three wise men, some of whom were former civil servants, recommended the reintroduction of water charges. The European Union is strongly pressing for the reintroduction of water charges. In granting planning permission, every local authority requires that all dwellings must provide a facility for a meter. All the indications are that there is no great stomach for the reintroduction of water charges before the next general election. However, given the opportunity I have no doubt that the Government would re-introduce water charges if it thought it could get away with it. As far as I am concerned it will not be allowed to get away with it.

The Bill does not refer to the possibility of the introduction of domestic waste water charges. These have already been introduced for commercial entities almost overnight. Most people were not aware they were coming. Even if the assurances in the Minister's speech were any good there is no guarantee that waste water charges will not be introduced in the future.

The current level of commercial water charges and commercial waste water charges might be significantly increased because of the effects of the Bill in the future. Many small business people and small farmers are already finding it difficult to meet the water and waste water charges. It would be most unhelpful to small commercial businesses for water and waste water charges to be increased beyond all proportions. I am concerned that this might occur.

Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Barr
Roinn