Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 2011

Vol. 748 No. 2

Water Services (Amendment) Bill 2011 [Seanad]: Second Stage

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to bring the Water Services (Amendment) Bill 2011 before the Dáil today. It is important to explain the background and the rationale for this legislation. There are two main reasons for the introduction of this Bill, the first of which relates to non-compliance with EU legislation.

On 29 October 2009, the European Court of Justice ruled against Ireland on the treatment of wastewater from septic tanks and other on-site wastewater treatment systems. The court found that by failing to adopt the necessary legislation to comply with Articles 4 and 8 of the waste directive as regards domestic wastewater disposed of in the countryside through septic tanks and other individual wastewater treatment systems, Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

The European Court of Justice found that Irish legislation does not adequately provide for domestic wastewater from septic tanks to be recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes which could harm the environment. It found Irish legislation also fails to provide for the prohibition of the uncontrolled disposal of such wastewater which is a requirement of the waste directive. Irish legislation, the court ruled, does not adequately provide that the holder of such wastewater either has it handled by a public or private waste collector or recovers or disposes of it himself in accordance with the provisions of the directive.

The second reason is a more fundamental reason, one which no right-thinking person could disagree. The key objective of the new legislation is to enhance and protect public health and the environment which will, in turn, benefit rural dwellers in terms of a better quality of life and better quality water.

In its 2009 water quality report, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, noted the presence of microbial contamination arising from the entry of faecal matter to Ireland's waters. The report stated one of the main sources of microbial pathogens was on-site wastewater treatment systems including septic tanks. The EPA's report states a high proportion of monitoring points with faecal coliform detections not only reflects the impact of human activities, but also the vulnerable nature of groundwater in some parts of the country.

Groundwater is a source of drinking water for many people. Approximately 26% of the public and private drinking water supply is provided from groundwater sources. The EPA has identified effluent from on-site wastewater treatment systems as one of the main sources of contamination of groundwater. The 2006 census reported more than 450,000 households were served by septic tanks and other forms of on-site wastewater treatment systems.

Aside from the obvious need to protect human health and the environment, there is another reason why it is critical this legislation is enacted as soon as possible. In July 2011 the European Commission applied to the European Court of Justice to have fines imposed on Ireland for failing to comply with the original court ruling in this case. If we do not comply with the ruling quickly, Ireland will be the subject of significant fines by the court. The level of the fines could be a lump-sum penalty of €2.7 million and daily fines for continued non-compliance of more than €26,000 per day, equivalent to more than €9.5 million per annum. The Government has not delayed or prevaricated in addressing this matter. It has acted promptly in bringing this Bill forward and is determined to have it enacted as soon as possible, thereby meeting the requirements of the European Court of Justice ruling.

The court's ruling excluded County Cavan. The European Commission acknowledged the by-laws adopted in that county in 2004 did constitute legislation for the purposes of the waste directive. The introduction of provisions mirroring the provisions of those by-laws was therefore considered when drafting this Bill. However, the Cavan by-laws do not contain any requirement for householders to register their on-site systems with the local authority. The formation of a register is an essential part of the EU guidelines for environmental inspections and will be a critical element of the development of the EPA's risk-based inspection plan. The Cavan by-laws require all owners of septic tanks and similar on-site treatment systems to have their systems assessed by a competent person with re-inspections being necessary every seven years. Householders must pay for the assessments, which are carried out by the private sector and cost, on average, €200 per assessment. Inspections carried out under the new national system being introduced under this legislation will be free.

The Bill has been drafted to minimise the impact on householders. The registration fee payable will cover all administration and inspection costs. There will be no additional charges such as a re-registration charge levied on householders. Responsibility for the prevention of pollution from septic tanks and other on-site wastewater treatment systems already rests with the owners of premises served by such systems. Section 70 of the Water Services Act 2007 places a duty of care on owners to ensure their treatment systems do not cause a risk to human health or the environment or a nuisance through odours. Householders who are already meeting their responsibilities in this regard have nothing to fear from the risk-based inspection system which will be introduced under this legislation. The Bill specifies the basic criteria against which on-site wastewater treatment systems will be inspected. These criteria, specified in Article 4 of the waste directive, are that the system does not endanger human health or the environment including water, air and soil, the countryside and places of special interest. If a septic tank or similar system is operated and maintained properly and not causing pollution, it will pass inspection and will not require upgrading. There is no question of applying new standards, for example, those of the EPA's 2009 code of practice, to older on-site systems.

Section 4 provides for the amendment of section 70 of the 2007 Act by the inclusion of a new Part 4A, containing 11 sections, after Part 4 of the 2007 Act. The new Part 4A will build on the existing legal obligations in the Water Services Act and ensure Irish legislation on the treatment of wastewater from septic tanks and other on-site wastewater treatment systems fully complies with the waste directive. Part 4A will introduce a register of all such treatment systems, establish an inspection system for treatment systems and provide for the necessary protection of human health and the environment.

Section 70A provides for definition of the terms used in the new Part 4A. Section 70B provides that each water services authority will be responsible for maintaining a register of treatment systems. This will comprise a single national register with individual parts for each local authority. Work is under way to develop the database which will support the register. Section 70B also establishes a requirement for householders to have details of their systems entered on the register. In accordance with the section, I will make regulations prescribing the date for householders to have their systems registered. I have in mind a timeframe of 12 months from the date of enactment of the legislation for this requirement. A facility to allow registration online is being developed and it is also intended to put in place a written registration facility via the local authorities. Details of when the registration facilities are available will be announced in the national and local media.

Section 70B also provides that householders will be required to pay a modest registration fee which will not exceed €50. The exact fee will be prescribed in regulations. The revenue generated will be used to fund the delivery of a national inspection plan which will be developed by the EPA in consultation with the local authorities. The roll-out of the national inspection plan will be managed by the local authorities. Householders will not be charged for inspections. Following the initial registration, householders will not be required to re-register their systems for five years and there will be no charge for second and subsequent registrations.

Section 70C sets out the duties of owners of premises connected to domestic wastewater treatment systems and places responsibility on the owner of a system to ensure it is maintained and operated in a manner that does not cause a risk to human health or the environment.

Section 70D provides that after the date for registration, to be prescribed under Section 70B, when a house served by a domestic wastewater treatment system is sold, the vendor must provide evidence to the purchaser that the system is registered. The purchaser is required to notify the relevant local authority of the change of ownership.

Section 70E deals with the appointment of inspectors. The EPA will be responsible for the appointment of persons to act as inspectors of treatment systems. The section includes a provision for the making of regulations concerning the appointment of inspectors, criteria to be met by those seeking appointment, the circumstances leading to the revocation of an appointment and procedural matters in relation to appeals.

Section 70F contains provisions concerning the EPA's responsibility to establish and maintain a register of persons appointed as inspectors for the purposes of Part 4A. Section 70G sets out the powers granted to inspectors appointed under section 70E. These powers include the examination of a treatment system, taking samples, taking photographs of any element of the treatment system, examination of the subsoil and obtaining information and inspecting records pertaining to the maintenance, servicing or operation of the treatment system. This section also provides that an inspector cannot enter a private dwelling without the permission of the occupier. Once notification of an inspection has been provided by a water services authority, it will be an offence for a person to prevent an inspector from entering a premises, to obstruct or impede an inspector when carrying out their duties, or to provide false or misleading information regarding a treatment system to an inspector, the EPA or a water services authority. The EPA or a water services authority will have the power to have authorised and appropriate persons accompany inspectors in the course of their duties.

Section 70H provides that inspectors will carry out inspections of treatment systems as requested by the EPA or by a water services authority. Inspections will be based on the national inspection plan, which is provided for under section 70K. It is important again to note that, irrespective of the age or type of waste water treatment system in place, if it is working properly and not polluting, there is no question of the owner having to upgrade to a more modern system. Under section 70H, inspectors are required to inform the owner of a treatment system and the relevant water services authority of the results of the inspection.

Where a water services authority receives notification that a treatment system is causing or is likely to cause a risk to human health or the environment, the water services authority must issue an advisory notice to the owner within 21 days. An advisory notice will state that the water services authority considers that the particular treatment system is, or has potential to be, for stated reasons, a threat to human health or the environment. The notice will direct the owner to take the necessary remediation measures and will specify a timeframe for completion of those measures. Where remediation measures are required, all options available will be considered. These will take into account issues such as the exact nature of the problem, the size of the site and the extent of the risk to human health or the environment. Failure to comply with the provisions of an advisory notice within the specified timeframe will be an offence.

This section also provides for an appeals mechanism for persons who do not agree with the provisions of an advisory notice. On payment of a fee to be prescribed, an appeal of an advisory notice can be requested. There is a legal requirement to set a maximum limit on fees in primary legislation. During the debate in the Seanad, I indicated my intention to amend this section to reduce the maximum fee for appeals to €20 and I will table this amendment on Committee Stage. The section provides that where an advisory notice is cancelled following an appeal, the fee will be refunded.

On receipt of an application under this section, the water services authority will arrange for the re-inspection to be carried out by an authorised person appointed by the water services authority. The re-inspection process will either confirm the provisions of the advisory notice, revise those provisions or set aside the advisory notice. If necessary, a revised advisory notice will be issued. Section 70H also provides for an appeal to the District Court in certain limited circumstances by a person aggrieved by an advisory notice issued after a re-inspection has been carried out. The section also sets out actions to be taken by a person on whom the advisory notice has been served and by the water services authority once remediation works are carried out.

Section 70I provides for the EPA's supervision of water services authority functions for the purposes of this Part. The EPA can issue directions to the water services authorities to ensure they are carrying out functions assigned to them under the Bill in an effective manner. The section also provides that the agency can direct the water services authorities to maintain records regarding registrations, inspections carried out, advisory notices issued and prosecutions initiated and to submit those records to it. The EPA is required to keep records regarding its supervisory role and of directions issued to water services authorities. Water services authorities must comply with directions issued under this section; failure to do so will be an offence.

Section 70J provides for the issue of directions by the EPA to inspectors and that inspectors must comply with those directions.

Section 70K deals with the preparation, by the EPA, of a national inspection plan regarding the inspection of domestic waste water treatment systems. It sets out the issues to be considered by the agency when drawing up the plan. The section also makes provision for the revision of the plan. Water services authorities will be required to give effect to the plan and failure to do so will be an offence. The section outlines the criteria the EPA should take into account to when preparing the inspection plan and, in particular, risk or potential risk to human health or the environment. The risk-based approach to inspections and monitoring is consistent with the agency's overall policy and approach to environmental enforcement and is consistent with international best practice. The first inspection plan will be developed by the EPA in 2012 and inspections of systems will commence in 2013.

Section 70L provides for the making of regulations for the purposes of Part 4A and sets out some of the issues that may be dealt with in those regulations, including the performance standards for treatment systems. Performance standards will vary according to the age and type of on-site system in place and I emphasise again that there is no question of imposing the standards set out in the EPA's 2009 code of practice on older septic tanks. The EPA's code is primarily concerned with new developments. Regulations will also deal with the standards and procedures to apply where domestic waste water treatment systems are emptied and the contents disposed of. This is an important aspect of the waste directive.

Section 70M provides for the penalties for offences under the various sections of the Bill. These are proportionate and reflect the seriousness of the risk to public health and the environment posed by inadequately maintained or malfunctioning on-site systems.

This legislation is necessary to ensure Ireland complies with a ruling of the ECJ and the timing is critical, as we are facing the imposition of fines and penalties for non-compliance. The legislation is equally important, as it will establish additional protections for public health and for the environment. There has been much speculation and scaremongering about the Bill and what it will mean for households in rural Ireland. People living in the countryside need have nothing to fear from it because, on the contrary, it will benefit rural dwellers, improve water quality and serve to improve the quality of the countryside and the quality of life in the countryside.

I look forward to engaging with Members on the provisions of the Bill and I commend it to the House.

I wish to share time with Deputies McGuinness, Browne and McConalogue.

This Bill is an attack on rural Ireland. It inflicts profoundly unfair, discriminate charges against rural home owners, underpinned by the threat of criminality. It provides no financial assistance for necessary upgrades and it has no detail on the applicable standards. It puts forward a vague unsustainable financial model for an unknown number of inspectors undertaking an unknown number of inspections for an unknown amount of money. We fear that the Bill is the thin end of the wedge, pricing people out of rural life, confining it to those who can afford it, not those who are born and raised in the area. We will fight to defend those affected by this legislation through a series of comprehensive amendments.

There are 475,000 septic tanks in Ireland with approximately 1.5 million people serviced by them. These families are struggling in the midst of a global recession. They undertook to build a home in their communities and they paid development levies to their local authorities to fund services. They are not simply part of rural life; they are rural life. The Bill will further burden them with additional charges, the cost of upgrading their septic tanks and the threat of higher charges in the future.

The Government has defended the Bill on two grounds. The first is the ECJ ruling of October 2009 and the second is the need to protect ground water quality. The ECJ ruling found Ireland wanting in implementing the 1975 waste directive. It exempted County Cavan on the basis of the inspection system it introduced in 2004. The issue at stake is the specific process being introduced by the Government, not the need for a system to ensure water sources are kept clean and free from pollution. It is disingenuous to suggest or imply that the system put forward in the legislation was detailed in the ECJ ruling. This is not the only way forward to address the judgment.

Maintaining high quality water, free of pollution, is an essential goal of our amendments to the Bill. The Minister's commitment to the environmental cause appears to be a marriage of convenience to which he comes home whenever it suits him. He has taken the climate change Bill promised in the programme for Government and parked it indefinitely. He is getting ready to hit motorists with low emission cars with a 50% motor tax increase just for being fuel efficient. The Minister strikes me as an unlikely champion of the environment he claims his Bill is designed to protect.

The 2000 water directive has set a series of standards for Ireland to reach by 2015 but the greatest threat to our obligations in this area is not the ordinary householder living in the countryside that the Bill threatens to criminalise. The biggest factor undermining water quality is local authorities failing to live up to the necessary standards. The Minister's occasional bout of interest in the environment would be better served by concentrating on them and not the ordinary hard working families in the countryside that this legislation will affect.

Let us examine the Bill in detail. It introduces a series of fees to be paid as part of the registration and appeals process. The initial €50 fee may seem innocuous but it sets a precedent for placing additional, discriminate charges at the foot of rural home owners. The principle at stake is that home owners are being laden with charges on the basis that they live in the countryside for services that urban dwellers expect as a normal part of the State's services. Our fear is that once this precedent of a highly discriminatory charge is set, it will be the thin end of the wedge. Further fees may follow and increases justified by the same thinking that has led to this Bill may lead to many more. If rural home owners are to be singled out for a charge relating to the basic necessities of life, what is to prevent more being applied down the line? This Bill paves the way for further encroachments on the right of people to live in rural Ireland.

The Bill presents a new set of regulations, which will be supported by the threat of the commission of an offence and which will be implemented by an unknown number of private inspectors. Underpinning the additional charges and fresh obligations to be imposed is the threat of criminality. The Minister evaded this aspect by seeking refuge in semantics regarding definitions of criminality. I draw his attention to section 70C, which states that a person who contravenes the regulations outlined will commit an offence. According to this section, domestic waster water treatments "adversely affect the countryside or places of special interest". The vague nature of such demands, coupled with the wide area to which they relate, will empower inspectors with a very broad and potentially threatening remit. Despite all his evasiveness on this issue, the Minister is well aware that the people who will be affected by the legislation will be treated like criminals. To ordinary homeowners, elderly farmers or young families starting out in life, being hauled before the District Court in order to pay a fine because their septic tank adversely affected the countryside will be tantamount to being treated like common criminals. No amount of verbal gymnastics on the part of the Minister can change that.

If we consider the financial impact of upgrading septic tanks under the new system, we begin to see what will be the real costs to rural homeowners throughout the country. The Minister has not detailed the standards that will apply when inspectors arrive on people's premises. He indicated that he has received agreement from the Commission in respect of standards. However, the detail of the regulations remains unknown. The most up-to-date regulations are contained in the EPA's code of practice for 2009. The latter set out percolation areas, minimum distances between septic tanks and homes, the standard of the tanks, etc. If they were to be applied, this would give rise to a need for more wide-scale upgrades throughout the country. The standards relating to a home which was built in 1982 and which has a septic tank will diverge significantly from those set down in the 2009 guidelines. There may be severe space constraints in respect of such a house, the specified minimum distance may not be achievable and difficulties might arise in the context of the criteria relating to soil type. What are the owners of such houses expected to do?

The lack of clarity in respect of this matter reflects the fact that the Bill is entirely silent in respect of the cost to homeowners. The regulatory impact analysis relating to the Bill indicates that it is difficult to estimate the costs involved, particularly those relating to householders. The Bill, the regulatory impact analysis and the Minister are all silent with regard to how much all of what is proposed will cost.

Let us consider the Cavan model in order to obtain a sense of what will be the impact of the Bill. There has been a 25% failure rate in Cavan in respect of septic tanks, with remedial works costing an average of €2,500. However, regulatory impact analysis indicates — I draw the Minister's attention to this figure, which he queried in the Seanad, and its source — that in certain instances the costs relating to a complete upgrade may reach €17,000. This information is listed on page 9 of the analysis if the Minister wishes to see it. Depending on the standards applied, the failure rate and the level of works to be undertaken will represent a significant increase on what has occurred in Cavan since 2004. Taking the basic failure rate of 25% and the average cost of €2,500 for an upgrade in Cavan, we can at least obtain some limited sense of the overall cost to rural homeowners to which the Bill will give rise. If there is a 25% failure in respect of the 475,000 septic tanks throughout the country, then 120,000 tanks will need to be upgraded. As a result, 120,000 family homes and approximately 460,000 people will be affected.

The homeowners to whom I refer are already struggling. Imposing an additional charge of €2,500 will do little to assist the much-vaunted job creation programme which the Government likes to discuss but in respect of which it fails to act. Under this Bill — and based on the limited information provided by the Minister — some 120,000 rural homeowners will be obliged to spend an average of €2,500 on upgrades. This means that a total of €300 million will be paid out on such upgrades. A further €23.75 million will be raised by means of the registration fee. In addition, those who are of the view that they have been unfairly forced to pay thousands of euro on upgrades will be obliged to pay an appeal fee of €20. This is the real cost for ordinary homeowners with regard to what is contained in the Bill. This money will be sucked out of the rural economy and the cost will be felt in homes throughout the country. What is envisaged represents a €300 million tax on rural living.

The system of inspectors outlined in the Bill is also shrouded in secrecy. This is another reason we believe that what is proposed represents the thin end of the wedge. The Minister has stated that the inspection process will be self-financing as a result of the registration fees collected and that there will be no impact on the Exchequer. However, there is a lack of real and credible detail with regard to the funding system outlined in the Bill. If this system proves to be insufficient, will charges be increased in order to plug the gap caused by poor planning in respect of the legislation?

The Bill contains a series of costly measures which inspectors will be obliged to pursue. Comprehensive testing of sites — ranging from site visits to the taking of soil samples — may be necessary as part of a thorough examination. At a minimum, there will be a need to carry out on-site visits. The latter may often take place in rural settings where housing density is low. Inspectors will be obliged to be fully qualified and will have to pay a fee of €1,000 in order to become registered. On that basis, it is safe to assume that inspectors will expect a sufficient level of remuneration in respect of their efforts. The Minister has given no indication of the number of inspectors to be employed, nor has he outlined how many inspections they will be contracted to undertake or what will be the cost of such inspections.

The Bill makes provision for the imposition of a €50 registration charge which will cover inspectors' fees. In the context of the 475,000 septic tanks throughout the country, this will yield a once-off payment of €23.75 million, or €4.75 million per annum over five years. Will €4.75 million per annum be sufficient in the context of fully funding the wages of inspectors? Certain inspections will be less time consuming than others. A visual inspection verifying registration details will be far less arduous than undertaking soil samples and monitoring septic tanks. How will the fees relating to inspections be decided? Will the level of revenue be adequate to allow the system to be self-sustaining? Is it the case that there will be no impact on the already embattled Exchequer or on local authorities, which, from a financial point of view, are struggling?

In the Seanad the Minister indicated that he expects 90% of the work relating to this matter to be done by local authority employees rather than by the privately-contracted inspectors in respect of which the Bill makes provision. Will that not place an additional financial burden on local authorities? The initial remit of the Bill to cover tanks located near water supplies has been significantly broadened to encompass the entire countryside. Thus, inspections will be carried out across the entire State. This will heighten the demand for inspectors and lead to an increase in the costs involved. I am of the view that such costs may prove to be unmanageable and that additional charges will be levied in order to fund the system of inspections. As already stated, what is proposed represents the thin end of the wedge.

The amendments my party will be tabling will be discussed in detail on Committee Stage. However, I can outline to the House that we are seeking the abolition of the registration charge; clarity in respect of the funding relating to inspections; elimination of the appeal fee; clarity in respect of the regulation of household waste water systems; clarification regarding the standard to be applied by inspectors and whether EU approval for this has been forthcoming; grant aid for maintenance costs and upgrades of at least 85%; that mandatory upgrades must be exempt from planning permissions, environmental impact assessments and environmental screenings; there should be no requirement for extra land in order to comply with provisions of the Bill; and free annual de-sludging. The Minister has made some movement on these critical issues I hope he will continue his efforts in this regard.

The Bill is an attack on rural Ireland. It imposes a tax on living in rural areas and this is backed up by the threat of criminality. It does not contain any detail in respect of how the inspection system will be funded or on the standards that will apply. In addition, it does not provide financial assistance for those who will be obliged to upgrade. The lack of clarity in respect of the Bill and the disingenuous arguments put forward to justify its introduction have led us to fear the worst. We see this legislation for what it is, namely, a further attack on rural Ireland. It also paves the way for the introduction of additional charges in the future. We will not stand by while people are being priced out of living in the communities in which they were born and raised. Fianna Fáil will be opposing the Bill.

I join Deputy Niall Collins in opposing the Bill. None of us disagrees with the introduction of standards, particularly in this area and in the context of protecting the environment and our water sources. However, this legislation is gold-plated in nature and it works against the interests of citizens. There are other simpler ways, which were introduced in other jurisdictions, that could be applied here and that could have the same benefit and achieve the same goals that the Minister seeks to achieve. I believe that this legislation should not be taken now. We should look at other possibilities and other ways of doing this business.

I compare this Bill to another piece of legislation introduced by the previous Government, the climate change Bill. That, too, was gold-plated. It was set out to suit Europe, not to deal with the issues at home and achieve the same goals. It is also similar to the legislation governing NERA. The consequences of that legislation were inspectors terrorising businesses up and down the country. At one stage, that had to be stopped and they had to be redirected in terms of their ambitions.

What I see lacking in this legislation is the criteria set out for each householder who has a septic tank, what he or she needs to comply with, what the standards are and what will happen to him or her during the course of these inspections. The householder is a partner in our attempt to protect water sources, etc.

Another important point which is not developed in the Bill relates to the powers of the inspectors so that the citizen would know exactly what to expect. The Minister said that when an inspector visits, he or she must have permission to come on-site, but the inspector also has the power to enter the site and it is that power that will be introduced to the householder on the day. It is that power that must be challenged. When a citizen of the State decides to object to or question the power of any inspector in the State, we know the consequences. Indeed, the Minister and I are aware of what happened in our constituency to Mr. Donal Norris with the NRA and other examples can be called upon to prove that point as the NRA set about its business in the State.

If we look at what else happened in terms of looking after the quality of water, we need go no further than Kilkenny and the Purcellsinch plant. For years, that plant polluted the River Nore and in spite of some investment in the plant, it remained a source of problems in the area in which it was located. It was the residents of that area who paid a serious penalty because the EPA, as an arm of the State, would not take the appropriate action against Kilkenny County Council. The opposite is the case when the State is dealing with citizens or individuals, where it is well able to flex its muscle. That is the reason I have concerns about how individuals will cope with this serious problem. It may work out the way the Minister has described. It may be that there will be a small number of people affected by this, but let us take the ones who are affected and examine what will happen.

They could be those who are marginalised with very little income. They could be the elderly in a rural community who could have a visit from an inspector, which causes its own level of concern for them, and they may then need to carry out certain works on-site to ensure that they comply with whatever unknown standard the inspector lays down. Then there is the cost involved in that, but the State does not reach out to help them with it. It does not try to assist them in any way. Assistance should be the approach in the context of this Bill. They are partners in what the Minister is trying to achieve. They have not been consulted, by and large, and the Minister is imposing this legislation on them. If we were to consult them, they might say that they would comply and that they would work with the inspectors, given time, given an understanding of what is required of them and given some sort of financial assistance to reach the point where they can put in place what is required. I doubt if many of them are deliberately not complying with regulation of the treatment of effluent from their own sites.

Another matter that concerns me — the Minister, Deputy Hogan, has been a practical practising politician at local level for a long time — is when the State suggests that it envisages it will not cost more than €50 or that such and such might happen. The reality with this type of legislation is that, should it be passed and should the Minister, Deputy Hogan, move to a different Department, it is then left to the officials to interpret what the Minister said. What the Minister is saying may be good and positive, and I would agree with some of it.

The Bill states definitely that it is €50.

It states that, but the officials are left to interpret all of the rest.

There will be no misinterpretation.

There is nothing to stop them, as was the case with the NERA legislation——

It cannot be stopped without changing the law.

——from applying their own standards and their own method of ensuring that a citizen complies with the State. Given my experience at local authority level over 25 years, I have no doubt that the rights of the citizen will be ignored and the State will ensure that the officials apply the letter of the law to every one of them. In the references in the Bill, the Minister speaks of criminal proceedings and what the officials can do.

Unfortunately, that is the case. That is the weakness in legislation, not merely the Minister's but others.

No. That is the one Deputy McGuinness's party brought in 2007. That is the one Deputy McGuinness voted for in 2007.

I did not interrupt the Minister.

No, but Deputy McGuinness voted for it.

The Minister, Deputy Hogan, should have the manners to listen to the Opposition because that is part of the democratic process in this House. The Minister should take his seat unless it is a point of order.

I would like to see much more in this legislation.

On a point of order——

Is Deputy McGuinness accepting a point of order?

I will accept a point of order from the Minister, Deputy Hogan.

Deputy McGuinness's time is now up anyway.

Could Deputy McGuinness tell me where I used the word "criminal"?

I call Deputy Browne.

Would Deputy McGuinness show me where I used the word "criminal"?

In the legislation——

We have not much time.

——the Minister leaves it open to the inspectors, who will interpret differently what the Minister has said in this House.

Deputy McGuinness should answer the question.

I am giving the Minister my opinion.

It is Deputy McGuinness's opinion.

As was the case with NERA and other legislation, if the Minister does not define what is necessary in this Bill to protect the rights of citizens and to reduce the costs imposed by the State on them, then the citizen will fall foul of this legislation.

Deputy McGuinness should tell the truth.

I must call Deputy Browne. These matters can be gone into on Committee Stage when there will be plenty of time. I call Deputy Browne.

First, I want to put on record my opposition to the Bill. I believe it is an attack on rural communities up and down the country.

The principle at stake in the Bill is that rural dwellers will have to pay more for the same services as other taxpayers merely in order to live in the countryside. This sets a precedent that rural dwellers will be discriminated against by the Government on the basis of where they live and the requirements that it demands.

People are rightly concerned about the charge of which the Minister speaks. For example, the €50 registration fee may be increased in future registrations as the cost of the system unfolds. There is a telling lack of detail in the Bill on the overall costs involved in the operation. In my experience in this House, when a fee is imposed, usually at a low level, as the years go by it increases dramatically. That is what people are concerned about. The Minister might explain in his reply whether he intends to ring-fence this €50 registration fee, or whether it can be increased on an annual basis or whenever subsequent registrations are carried out.

Rural dwellers will now have to pay the septic tank charge in addition to the proposed €100 household charge. It is something that urban dwellers will not have to face. Also, the implementation of water charges will mean that rural dwellers will have to pay separate charges for water disposal through their septic tank charges and also face new fees for water through the new metering system. It is certainly double taxation.

At a time when households are under severe financial constraints, the charge penalises people for living in rural communities with no direct access to public sewerage schemes. As we all will be aware, public sewerage schemes are heavily subsidised by the taxpayer whereas, to date, no assistance has been given to those in rural areas for their effluent systems. The biggest threat to Ireland not meeting its 2015 obligations under the EU directive comes from local authorities, not rural householders. What does the Minister intend to do about local authorities responsible for so much pollution up and down the country? He should concentrate his efforts on tackling this problem and not introduce a highly discriminatory charge against rural Ireland.

There are 30,000 septic tanks in County Wexford, where I come from. They all have different sized sites, with some of the houses using septic tanks on 1.5 acres to 2 acres, depending on who has the land, in particular farmers' sons or daughters, while some are on half or quarter of an acre, with some on less. If, following registration, it is found that some septic tanks are not working properly and they are on only a quarter or a fifth of an acre, and have no chance of getting extra land to rectify the problem, how does the Minister intend that these people will be able to solve the problem? Will there be severe penalties against them? I know some of the environmental inspectors who work with local authorities, including some in my area, and while some are very reasonable, others adopt a very tough approach. If they say the problem cannot be resolved on the smaller amount of land, who will make the final decision?

I wish to raise the issue of grant aid and support for people who may have to upgrade. Figures are being bandied about that it will perhaps cost up to €17,000 to upgrade a problem septic tank. I was a Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when farmers were jumped on by the EU and asked to upgrade their farmyards, and close to €500 million was allocated to farmers to upgrade their systems under the farm waste management scheme. I had no problem with that as I believe farmers were entitled to get grant aid to upgrade their systems and bring them up to modern, EU standards. This will be very difficult for families and people, particularly with systems going back to the 1960s and 1970s when we did not have the high standards that now apply for septic tanks, percolation areas and all of that. Will the Minister help by introducing a grant aid system for people who will have to, under his legislation, upgrade their systems? If he does not introduce a grant system to support such people, including old age pensioners and those on low incomes as well as those who are working, they will not be in a position to implement the scheme as the Minister wants them to, and they will certainly not be in a position to pay €16,000 or €17,000 for an upgrade.

The Minister referred to the local authorities and the EPA. When the EPA carries out decisions under its jurisdiction, it is usually very strict and demanding and there is no flexibility or grey area — it is black and white with the EPA. I am very concerned that once the legislation is on the Statute Book, the EPA, in conjunction with the local authorities, will implement it to the letter of the law. If I go into the planning section of Wexford County Council at present to argue for a planning decision or some flexibility for a person who may be constrained in regard to land or other areas related to planning, the officials usually tell me it is due to an EPA regulation. This is where the difficulty will be.

The measure is very badly thought out. Did the Minister look at the systems in Scotland, for example? All septic tanks there must be registered but the households affected do not have to pay. In Northern Ireland, there is no mandatory inspection and the inspection costs are borne by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. Households do not pay for the original discharge consent but receive free de-sludging every 12 months.

The Minister must consider all the different options that could be available before placing an unfair burden on a large part of the population. It seems the Minister is intent on introducing the legislation. Obviously, he has the majority in the House to do that and there is little we on this side of the House can do if he decides to push it through. However, I ask him when replying to give some idea whether he intends to seek funding from the Minister for Finance and perhaps from the EU to grant aid people who, under the Bill, will have to upgrade their septic tanks to a reasonable standard at a cost of approximately €16,000 to €17,000.

I wish to share time with Deputies Pádraig Mac Lochlainn and Pearse Doherty.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I have seen few issues in my years as a political activist that stimulated such debate and passion as this ill thought-out Bill. Meetings with hundreds of people in attendance have been organised to discuss what has become known as the septic tank Bill. People's responses have varied from outright rejection of the Government's proposals to genuine confusion and frustration. The response of the Minister has done little to clarify the situation. Having attended some of those meetings and dealt with constituents' concerns in rural areas, and having read the Bill and all the information available, I am more convinced than ever that the approach of the Government is wrong on this matter.

We in Sinn Féin are fully aware we need to protect the environment and ground water. We fully support the registration of septic tanks and the need to carry out remedial works and upgrades. However, we are proposing a common sense approach on septic tanks. Rural dwellers should not be faced with another stealth tax. Rural Ireland is already trying to cope with huge increases in costs, including two in recent months, namely, increases in public transport costs and the massive increase in fuel costs, some 29% in the case of oil.

Consecutive Governments, including the Government led by Deputy Ó Cuív's party, were fully aware of the situation facing rural Ireland. The facts are that this issue dates back to the 1975 European Council directive on waste which the European Court of Justice ruled in 2009 that Ireland had breached. Not a year has passed since 1975 in which either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael and Labour were not in power yet nothing was done about it. Fianna Fáil had almost two years since the court judgment in 2009 to deal with this issue but, in true fashion, it abdicated that responsibility. It is grossly hypocritical of Fianna Fáil Deputies and their entourages to be flapping around the countryside, organising meetings and complaining about this Bill when they themselves are partly to blame for the current crisis in which we find ourselves.

Once again, it is ordinary householders in rural Ireland who are being asked to pay the price for this irresponsibility. Pay the price they will if the Minister has his way, first with a registration fee of €50, then with re-inspection fees of €200 and next, of course, with the massive cost to be borne by ordinary families if they need upgrades or remediation works carried out. Why has a householder to re-register after five years? Given current technology, if something is registered, it remains registered and should not need to be re-registered after five years. We should not see this measure as simply a way of gathering revenue from rural dwellers.

Fine Gael promised the following in its pre-election manifesto:

Fine Gael will tackle leaking septic tanks that pollute our groundwater. We will introduce new regulations and standards to address the serious problems associated with septic tanks. As part of our Home Improvement Scheme we will provide short term finance for septic tank remediation assistance for home owners.

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