Deputy Seamus Healy is in possession and has 30 seconds remaining.
Water Services (Amendment) Bill 2011 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed)
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 20, after "Directives" to insert the following:
"and publish a set of agreed standards for septic tanks and treatment systems".
- (Deputy Brian Stanley).
I have a little more than 30 seconds; perhaps I had taken only 30 seconds.
There is no guillotine.
I welcome the Minister's confirmation that the quality of groundwater in Ireland is very good. As I said earlier, the report of the Environmental Protection Agency as well as others indicate that the levels of pollutants from septic tanks are, to use their word, minor and that the cost of remedial works is approximately 5% of the overall cost in dealing with. I am disappointed, however, that the Minister is not prepared to specify the standards that will apply. This is unacceptable. It is reasonable to expect standards to be specified in legislation such as this, as Members and the public should know the exact position.
The Minister asked those of us on this side of the House how we would solve the problem.
The Deputy's time is up.
I will conclude on this point.
If the Deputy is speaking for a second time, a two minute limit applies.
I had only started.
In respect of remedial works on septic tanks, rural dwellers have already paid towards the cost of municipal system upgrading and should not be asked to pay a second time. This work should be done by the State, which would help to create jobs and thus save money in making social welfare payments.
The Minister stated earlier that financial hardship would not be imposed on anyone who needed to have his or her septic tank adjusted in any way. Can I take it that people will not have to pay for adjustments where it is not their fault? If there are costs involved in remedying a tank to meet the new regulations, the Minister has stated no one will suffer financial hardship. I take it there will be grants. Is that true? The Minister is not answering my question.
I am guided by the Ceann Comhairle who is the boss.
The Minister will probably agree with me that it would be very unfair if people had to pay for something for which they were not responsible. I agree with the Government that this is a problem which must be addressed but under no circumstances should the cost fall on those who are not responsible for the fact that their septic tank does not measure up to the new regulations to be applied.
The Minister has said he will take a risk based approach rather than have all septic tanks inspected. I am curious to know how he will decide on which tanks should be tested. Wexford has the second highest number in the country and I am fairly confident that close to 50% will be found to be disappointing, as there is a huge problem with percolation in the county. There was also a huge problem with the raised beds scheme because the soil used was not good enough to take the bacteria out of the wastewater before reaching the water table. That presented a major problem. Many were allowed to use soak pits in the earlier days which are now clogging up and do not work as a result. There is also the issue of the outfall to running streams, which is now illegal. Obviously, permission was obtained to do this, but it will cost money to change it and since no one will suffer financial hardship, I presume the Government has plenty of money set aside. Obviously, the Europeans have agreed to give some money because it will cost a good deal of money to rectify the problem. In fairness, it will create some unemployment, but I hope ordinary people will not have to pay for it.
From the very beginning of this debate the lack of information on the standards to be applied and the maintenance regime has made it very difficult to have a realistic debate. The Minister gave an undertaking on Committee Stage that he would publish the standards and that they would be brought before the Oireachtas. Is he confirming that this will happen before he signs the commencement order?
I said that before the Deputy arrived.
As the Minister is aware I was attending a funeral
I understand the reason the Deputy was not here.
The second point is that we accept it is risk based, but when examining the risk involved, we should look at the areas in which there are high levels of groundwater pollution in considering the framework plans, but my understanding is that the Minister will be looking at the type of system in place. I have no doubt the grid will take into account the type of system in place and that on any risk based analysis those with older systems will be at much higher risk of not complying with the standards and are, therefore, certain to face inspection.
The third aspect the Minister appears to gloss over at times is that regardless of whether one's septic tank is inspected, one is still required under the Bill to bring one's system up to the prescribed standard, even though we do not yet know what that will be. If the Minister could deal with these issues, we would be able to move forward.
If the Minister is right that approximately 10% of septic tanks will fail and that the average cost will be approximately €2,000, the cost of providing a 100% grant will be €100 million. That will be a small sum out of the €1.5 billion he has set aside for water and wastewater services in the next five years. If he really believes what he has been saying to everybody for the past four or five months and since he believes this will be so cheap, he should be able to announce today that there will be a 100% grant to meet the cost of prescribed upgrades. If we could get this, many problems will be solved and the only issue that will remain will be the provision of a 100% grant to meet maintenance costs.
In his response to Members on this side of the House the Minister confused matters more than he clarified them. He has stated that what he is proposing will not impose financial hardship on any family, but at the same time, as Deputy Éamon Ó Cuiv pointed out, he is not willing to come forward and say what he is proposing. He did not clarify the exact standard to which he hopes septic tanks will be raised. He has not clarified that if he is asking a person who was granted planning permission in the 1980s to move from the standard of regulations with which they complied at that time to a higher standard of regulation which is to apply to the septic tank now, exactly what standard that is to be. In his response to these further queries, could he clarify the position?
Many people were outside these Houses earlier today seeking clarification, and it a was a shame the Minister did not go out and address them.
Did Deputy Healy-Rae tell them the truth?
Of course he did.
I will try to ignore the Minister because he tried earlier to rise me. I do not want to go over my speaking time-----
The Deputy has gone over it.
The Minister launched a personal attack on my family and myself earlier today. We will stand on our track record at all times-----
It is a very bad one.
-----and the Minister can stand on his. We can face the people with our heads held high on our track record of work any day of the week. We will see how the Minister will get on when he imposes these further regulations on the people, especially those in rural Ireland, and we will see what they think of him then.
I am sure Deputy Healy-Rae told people the full information about what we were discussing here today and told them the fact that I have said on many occasions that no planning will be required and that all we want to know is the year the septic tank was provided on a particular dwelling, irrespective of whether it was in the 1940s, 1970s or 1980s. We want to know whether the septic tank is doing the job it was intended to do and whether it is working. The regulations I will lay down will show that to be the case in due course.
The Minister has a funny way of going about this.
He is going the wrong way about it.
Deputy Ó Cuív mentioned a few times on Committee Stage the fact that he made every effort to include regulations as part of the legislation.
No, I said, I brought regulations back-----
What did you say?
I ask the Minister to address his comments through the Chair and not to be inviting comment.
I said I brought regulations back to-----
In the case of the Official Languages Act 2003 he did not do that.
I did.
The Deputy did not.
I did.
I have it here, and the Deputy did not do it.
I did.
Perhaps it is one that escapes the Deputy's mind.
If the Minister checks the record, he will see-----
I have the record; I checked it.
Can we proceed please? We are on amendment No. 1 and there is a time limit on this.
When I became Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, I was handed a European Court of Justice judgment in respect of which we had failed to achieve a victory in 2009.
One loses some.
The Deputy lost that one.
We lost that one.
The Deputy and his Government were doing something about it. Proposals were brought as far as Cabinet. I read them earlier for the benefit of other Deputies but I will give Deputy Ó Cuív a flavour of what was involved here. The Deputy and his Government said at the time that, arising from a consultation in October-November 2010, where his Government had committed to file a defence with the European Court of Justice arising from that judgment or else fines would have been imposed, the new system would set out the duties and responsibilities of householders regarding their on-site waste water treatment systems and would require householders to have their on-site systems assessed to ensure those systems were being operated and maintained correctly. Second, it would specify the frequency at which these assessments would be carried out. Third, it would require householders to take any remedial action necessary to bring their on-site waste water treatment systems up to required standards and the timelines within which such works were to be undertaken. When it came to the standards, the Deputy said that they must comply with the EPA code of practice for waste water treatment and disposal systems serving single houses dated October 2009.
Absolutely.
These are the standards that we now know-----
The is the second time the Minister has read that.
Deputies, please.
We now know that the cat is now out of the bag. The Deputy was prepared to bring in stringent standards for inspection and monitoring of septic tanks and he never told us about it and neither did he tell the people at all the public meetings he attended about all the various standards he was prepared to bring in. I am not prepared to bring in those standards.
We do not know the standards.
They are too onerous and too rigid for people and I have no notion of bringing in the standards that Deputy Ó Cuív was prepared to bring in when he was Minister and which he agreed in Cabinet to bring in. He should tell the people of Connemara and those attending public meetings the implications of his policy arising from what he intended to do in 2010.
Can I speak a second time on this?
The Deputy may and he has two minutes
I will explain it very simply. We had debated the issue of the State financing this and if the State were to finance it, surely it was good to have it to the highest standard.
The Deputy is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
What was the estimate?
If Minister was to read the information that I give at the meetings, he would note that my contention is that, sooner or later, Europe will force the Minister to apply the 2007 water framework directive and, whether he likes it or not and despite all his fine talk, he will wind up with those standards because it will be impossible to explain to a court in Europe that whereas this system is required in a new house to give clean water, and that is all it will give, a much simpler and inferior system will produce the same clean water. If that is so, why is the 2009 standard proposed by the EPA? It is inescapable logic and that is the point the Minister has been missing from beginning. What he is trying to say to the people is that he will get away with a low standard, he will wait for An Taisce to go over to Brussels and for Brussels to give him an order in regard to 2009, and then he will throw up his hands in horror and say that he cannot fund all of that and that people will have to pay for it themselves. That is exactly where he is leading the people.
(Interruptions).
He is trying to be a magician.
What I have said from the beginning is that as sure as day follows night, Europe will insist on the 2007 water framework directive.
Yes, it will. I asked the Minister that if it will not-----
I will have a bet with the Deputy on that.
-----and if it is firewalled against a court judgment-----
I will have a bet with Deputy Ferris on it as well.
(Interruptions).
One of the problems with the Minister's argument is that if he checks the decision of that Government, he will note it was to allow the Minister to draft a Bill, and we have not considered the Bill.
The Deputy just had the heads of it agreed and he did not-----
No, we did not have the heads of it agreed.
What happened? We have all the information.
I remind Members that this is Report Stage and we are dealing with a particular amendment and Deputy Ó Cuív's time is now up. I ask him to resume his seat and I will call Deputy Stanley to reply to the debate as the mover of the amendment.
How much time do I have to reply to it?
The Deputy has two minutes.
Having listened to the debate, it comes down to the issue of standards, which is the subject of the amendment tabled by Sinn Féin, which we are supposed to be discussing. My concern relates to site size. I heard what the Minister said and the assurances that were given, but this is not contained in the legislation. In relation to the site size, the issues include the size of the septic tanks, the location of the septic tanks, the quality of the percolation area, the location on the site of the septic tank, the maintenance of the septic tank and the frequency of the desludging and emptying of the tank. They are the issues with which the inspectors will deal. The Minister is being flaky on this and his predecessor, Mr. Gormley, was accused of being flaky. The Minister's answers have been very non-specific. This measure will be eased in and the EPA inspectors will not be flaky but will be very specific on this.
I wish to return to the issue of grants. I agree with the Minister on the risk-based approach. I hope he is talking about using the mapping system close to water sources and that it is not risk-based as in risk of each tank. I hope that is what he is talking about and, if it is, it is good news. That said and in the context of whether there to be an army of EPA licensed inspectors carrying out inspections, we must have grants in place, and the Minister has said he will examine that in 2013. He said the other day that he might yet consider a scheme of grants to be brought in, or he was quoted as having said that in an article in The Irish Times. That is the furthest I have heard the Minister go in that respect. The Minister has to give an upfront commitment in the House today to implement a scheme of grants. I outlined to the Minister a case-----
I am not going to sign any black cheque.
I do not want a blank cheque and neither does Sinn Féin nor the people of Laoighis-Offaly.
(Interruptions).
Go back to Northern Ireland.
I outlined a case this morning of two pensioners I met on Saturday-----
The Deputies do not deal in cheques, they deal in cash.
-----two people in their seventies who will need grant aid to upgrade their septic tank. If the Minister sends out an army of inspectors who force those unfortunate people to meet very high and stringent standards which they will not be able to be meet, I appeal to him to give an upfront commitment that he will try to help those families, particularly those who cannot afford it. Let us work together to improve ground water and water quality. We want to do that. I am sincere in saying that.
I now put the question: "That the amendment be made."
What about a response from the Minister?
The Minister has spoken twice. I am putting the question.
The Minister did not answer my questions.
He has already replied twice.
He has not responded on the issue of grants for upgrading.
All he did was read into the record what he had read in earlier.
I have already responded.
On Report Stage, each Deputy is entitled to speak once. If a Deputy speaks a second time he or she may speak for two minutes. The mover of the motion has a right of reply. The amendment was moved by Deputy Stanley and he has replied.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 40; Níl, 87.
Tá
- Calleary, Dara.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Niall.
- Colreavy, Michael.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Daly, Clare.
- Donnelly, Stephen S.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’.
- Fleming, Tom.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Halligan, John.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P..
- Lowry, Michael.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McDonald, Mary Lou.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGuinness, John.
- McLellan, Sandra.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Brien, Jonathan.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ross, Shane.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Troy, Robert.
- Wallace, Mick.
Níl
- Bannon, James.
- Barry, Tom.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P..
- Bruton, Richard.
- Butler, Ray.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Conaghan, Michael.
- Conlan, Seán.
- Connaughton, Paul J..
- Conway, Ciara.
- Corcoran Kennedyy, Marcella.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Creed, Michael.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Deering, Pat.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J..
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Anne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hannigan, Dominic.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Harris, Simon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Keating, Derek.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lawlor, Anthony.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lyons, John.
- Maloney, Eamonn.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McFadden, Nicky.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Murphy, Eoghan.
- Nash, Gerald.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Nolan, Derek.
- Nulty, Patrick.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- O’Donovan, Patrick.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Phelan, Ann.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Reilly, James.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Arthur.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Seán Ó Fearghaíl; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following:
"(3) The prescribed date shall not be sooner than the making of regulations in relation to maintenance, servicing and operation of domestic waste water systems.".
When we discussed the issue of standards in the context of amendment No. 1, the Minister said a standard much lower than that provided for in the water framework directive or by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2009 would suffice in this case. I would not like to doubt the Minister.
The Deputy is doubting me all the time.
If he is so certain about the standards he will provide for, he must have----
The Deputy is doubting me all the time.
I am doubting the Minister to a significant extent because he keeps contradicting himself. He must have the standards prepared already but he is keeping them very close to his chest, which is contrary to the principles of openness and transparency. He is not allowing Deputies on this side of the House to see what those standards of maintenance will be.
Is the Deputy getting worried?
I have been extremely worried about this issue from the beginning.
Deputy Ó Cuív should be allowed to speak without interruption.
It is just a joke to the Minister.
It is a matter of affordability for people in rural Ireland.
The Deputy will be a joke in a couple of weeks.
This amendment sets out to ensure this legislation will not be commenced until the regulations governing the maintenance, servicing and operation of domestic waste water services have been made. The Minister has given an undertaking that the regulations will not be made until they have been published, subjected to public consultation and brought to the Dáil and Seanad for discussion. We are trying to ensure the horse really does go before the cart. We will need to know the full facts of the regulations and to have them debated. We will need to have a chance to ensure the regulations being introduced by the Minister comply with EU law and cannot be challenged in the European court.
The Deputy is some man to lecture us about complying with EU law. He evaded the need to do so for several years when he was in government.
Deputy Ó Cuív to continue, without interruption.
That Government evaded its responsibilities under EU law.
We did not.
There was a European Court of Justice ruling to that effect.
I can add Deputy Creed to the list of speakers if he wishes.
There were 31 cases involving the then Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government alone.
Can we hear Deputy Ó Cuív without interruption?
That is some legacy.
Can I continue, a Cheann Comhairle?
Yes.
Thank you very much. We need to focus on the job in hand, which is very important to people.
It is important to tell people the truth.
By mentioning extraneous issues when we are trying to develop good legislation, the Deputies opposite are diverting our attention from issues of detail that will have a huge effect on ordinary people's lives. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment, which seeks to ensure that before this legislation is commenced and registration begins, we will know the standards that will apply in cases of maintenance and upgrading. We want to ensure we will have had an opportunity to see whether the standards to be proposed by the Minister will stand up to a challenge. If the standards are so easy and so different from those set out in the 2009 code of practice of the EPA, as the Minister keeps saying they are, they should withstand our scrutiny. Before we can agree to anything, we will have to ensure the standards cannot be overruled in a court case in Brussels. As a Deputy quite rightly pointed out, Irish Governments have introduced many laws in the belief that they were firewalled against challenge from Brussels. The original laws in this case can be included in that list. Unfortunately, when non-governmental organisations have gone to Brussels, we have often found that what we thought was firewalled is firewalled no longer. We cannot take a chance on this issue. Is the Minister willing to accept amendment No. 2 so that we can get the guarantee we need, so that the prescribed date for making the commencement order of registration, shall not happen sooner than the making of the regulations in relation to maintenance, servicing and operation of the domestic water systems, so that we stop buying a pig in a poke, as the Minister has been trying to do for the past four or five months since he proposed this Bill?
I support the Fianna Fáil amendment as regards the commencement date and to provide that everybody will be clear in advance of that date as to the standards and regulations. If the Minister's documentation is correct - I am sure his officials would not supply him with incorrect information - I acknowledge that previous Governments intended to push ahead with the 2009 standards which would be very onerous on rural dwellers.
Absolutely.
They had no choice.
This has been sitting around for the past 37 years and as a new Member, I fail to see how this has gone on for 37 years, how the people who were here before us and some who are still here, did not find time to sit down and work out how to sort out this problem, to achieve a consensus and to deal with it.
I refer to the commencement date for the application of the standards. I refer to people with small sites such as quarter-acre or half-acre sites and where percolation areas have been added outside of the site boundaries, with the permission of adjoining landowners. I ask that in these cases, the Minister will guarantee that people will not be forced to buy land to comply with whatever regulations are introduced. I know this is a difficult issue and there will need to be give and take with regard to it. Many people on small sites in areas with poor percolation have been forced to locate a percolation area beyond the boundary of their own site. I ask the Minister to address this because it is of great concern to people. They are worried that they may have to buy land from an adjoining landowner and in many cases they are on low incomes and do not have the wherewithal to purchase land.
The Minister is in the driving seat now. The previous Government did not do anything about increasing the grants for group sewerage schemes. The grant for group sewerage schemes is only €2,000 while the grant for the water schemes is €6,000, even though a far smaller pipe is involved. I wrote to the previous Government when I was a member of the county council but no action was taken to increase the grant for sewerage schemes beyond the level of the grant for water schemes. I ask the Minister to look at this issue because many of these problems could perhaps be solved by small group sewerage schemes on the outskirts of towns which would bring many of these ribbon development houses on the edges of settlement areas into the main sewerage system. The Minister knows what I mean because he was a county councillor. I ask for some commitment from the Minister to examine that issue which is very important and which will help to improve ground water around many of the towns and to encourage people away from septic tanks if they are living on the fringes of main settlement areas.
I support amendment No. 2. I ask the Minister to ensure that the commencement date is not imposed before the regulations are published and agreed and discussed in the House, as stated by Deputy Ó Cuív.
One of the strange aspects of the debate on the Water Services (Amendment) Bill has been the lack of any real clarity as to the regulations. The Minister has been a little misleading as he had stated previously in the Chamber that people would only have to comply with the regulations in force at the time a house was built. This means that anything built in 1970 would only have to comply with the 1970 regulations. To my mind this creates an administrative nightmare in the regulation of septic tanks as neighbouring houses could be judged on completely different standards. It is generally believed that the regulations will more than likely be very close to the 2009 standards when finally adopted by the EPA. This will place very onerous conditions on people and cause difficulties in compliance, as outlined by Deputy Stanley. The size of site required to comply with the 2009 standards is 0.6 of an acre whereas most people's houses would only be on half an acre. This would leave them in great difficulty in compliance. The regulations must take into account the smaller sites and people would not have the room to construct new percolation areas to meet those very onerous standards. A certain number of houses have been built in the recent past which comply with the 2009 standards and yet a lower standard may be chosen by the Minister. It is very difficult to debate this issue when we do not know what the standard will be. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment to ensure the standards are in place and have been debated in the House before the commencement of the legislation so that even at this late stage, we will be given some certainty as to the necessary compliance.
As this is my first time to speak on this Bill I wish to briefly set out the context. I will not delay as I am conscious that there are many amendments to be considered. It should not be necessary for anybody to have to say that it is in all our interests to have clean water throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. Every person in this House would agree, as would the good people from Connemara who left home at 6 a.m. this morning to travel to the gates of Leinster House; they all want clean water. Everybody outside this House wants clean water. The only reason I say this is that some of the contributions from some speakers on the Government side of the House seem to imply that because amendments are put forward we do not want clean water or we are prepared to live with risky water. That is not the case.
Because of the number of amendments, a statistician would be drawn to the conclusion that it is probably faulty legislation in the first place. People in rural areas are now to be penalised because of the failure of the previous Government - and it was a failure - to introduce a waste water inspection and management system and the decision of the present Government to go ahead with this proposed legislation to fill that gap. This action is not based on any clinical or measurable findings as to levels of pollution; it is based on the fact that the EU Court of Justice found there was a failure on the part of the Irish Government to provide a waste water management system. Legislation already exists to deal with those who cause pollution of our waterways. However, instead of introducing a pollution monitoring and management system, it now appears the Government is setting out to push through legislation when the impact of this legislation cannot be known. There is nothing specific about this legislation; it is only specific with regard to commencement dates. This is very dangerous were the Bill to be passed in its present form.
This morning, the Minister asked for trust. He asked us to trust him and to allow the legislation to go through and everything would be all right. The Minister will understand that some people will have great difficulty in trusting something in a Government which appears to be more concerned about bailing out reckless financial gamblers than it is about protecting the interests of Irish people. I would identify the gaps that have to be filled before this legislation can proceed. Those gaps include the required standard of the septic tanks, and we have already had a vote on that. There is nothing specific in that. Will the standard of the septic tanks be uniform or will it vary according to the level of risk presenting? For example, there is the proximity to water courses or prevailing soil types.
We were delighted to have the Minister in Leitrim quite recently but it is a pity the visit was at night. If he had come during the day he would have seen the beautiful glens, hills, mountains, lakes and rivers, although we have "challenging" soil types in Leitrim and parts of Sligo. At this time we do not know if the standards that the Minister will devise will apply across the country or according to prevailing soil types. We need to know exactly what financial support will be provided to people who find that their systems do not comply with the new standards, whatever they will be. What will happen if a person is ordered to upgrade a septic tank and treatment system but the upgrade requires additional ground which is not available? What will happen if the adjoining soil - even if it is owned by the person in question - is inadequate? It may have been adequate when the septic tank was installed but it may be inadequate now.
It is very wrong that this legislation will criminalise people who stuck by the rules and did what they were told. Standards have changed so these people will be outside the law. Until such gaps are filled and we can be assured that there will be equality of treatment for those who live in rural areas and those who live in urban areas, the Minister should not expect trust from the people. This legislation should not proceed.
Ba mhaith liom fíor-fáilte a ghabháil le muintir Chonamara atá anseo inniu. I support Deputy Collins's amendment. I will not go over what was asked of the Minister by all the previous speakers but we cannot buy a pig in a poke. We cannot say "everything will be all right, Jack" and if we sign up to this, the Minister will look after us. Does he intend to have a slush fund so he can look after some people? He could make a phone call to a county manager and let certain people off because they are his colour. That his what it seems like.
Nonsense.
The last speaker is dead right. The Minister was elected on a basis of trust, which is being quickly eroded. He must build the trust of the people but he is undermining whatever he has, so the people do not trust him. He is coming here and being flippant, arrogant, less than fair and dishonest. He is telling us that we are scaremongering and that it is Deputies Ó Cuív and Mattie McGrath who want the 2009 standards implemented. That is nothing short of poppycock. Everybody in this House knows the latest standards will be applied at all times, or else what is the point of having standards? There were no standards in 1963 so is everything fine once it works? Jim will fix it, or perhaps Deputy Tom Hayes.
Mistrust is the basis of the issue. We cannot be expected to vote when we have seen no standards or ideas about regulations. The Minister can tell us that certain standards will be used but I know An Taisce and other bodies would not be worth their salt if they did not go to Brussels or take more court cases against the Irish Government. I do not want them to do so. The Minister has made a big deal about this court case, that there will be big fines by the beginning of February and that European courts will have their effects felt again.
There cannot be one law for Tipperary and another for Kilkenny, although I am sure the better one is for Kilkenny. Two weeks ago the Minister promised €1 million to Kilkenny County Council to set up offices almost in Waterford city while at the same time cutting out Tipperary. The Minister is playing a political game in trying to be a cute, smart and be the big man. He is getting nowhere.
The Deputy should speak to the amendment.
I am speaking to the amendment. I am asking the Minister to indicate what standards will be used before he allows any inspections. He is talking about a consultation after the Bill is passed. The Minister can make flippant remarks about the last Government but he has been here a long time. Why did he not raise this issue over the past 30 years and get it sorted?
I did.
Why is it being bulldozed through now? This will not work. The Minister should go back to the people and allow self-assessment. He should support the public and if people need help, they should get the required support. He should not use the hammer.
I support amendment No. 2, proposed by Fianna Fáil's Deputies Niall Collins and Ó Cuív. Since the debate started this morning, it has become evident that the trick of the loop from the Minister is in getting people to register. Once there is a register and a database, the Minister can wash his hands of the process at a later stage by arguing that the EU is to enforce the latest standards. The implications of adhering to the latest standards have already been outlined by other Deputies. There are many houses around the countryside, for example, built on sites of less than half an acre, and cottages built long ago may have been built on a quarter acre. What will the people in such properties do if they must install the most modern percolation areas, which take up a vast amounts of ground, if they do not have it? The financial and social implications could be enormous.
Somebody may suggest that I am exaggerating. It would be great if the Minister could listen. Would anybody have believed that the EU would tell us that our stocking density and the retention period for sheep and cattle on farms must double, as it has done recently? It is trick of the loop again. Stock levels were fine in 2011 but they would have to be doubled, along with retention, to qualify for the single farm payment. I allude to this to show that once the register exists - including names, addresses and the locations of septic tanks - the people will be at the mercy of some EU body issuing a directive to the Government. It could stipulate that all the registered households must adhere to the latest standards. What would be the financial implications and why is the Minister not telling the people the truth and that they could be exposed to such a practice?
The Minister has made accusations of scaremongering against respectable politicians like Deputies Ó Cuív, Niall Collins, Mattie McGrath and Ferris, who have highlighted this issue and let the people know the truth. I also accuse them of something. I accuse them of giving information where the Minister did not and I accuse them of telling the truth when the Minister was holding back on letting the people know the truth. One of the most offensive elements of the process is the way this has been rushed through. At 1.30 p.m. tomorrow the vote will be held and the debate will be guillotined, all because the Government has a majority and can rush this through without proper debate.
I will address another matter. In earlier contributions, Deputies who support the Government gave the impression that people speaking out against this Bill really do not care about the countryside. Some people would like to give the impression that people from the country do not care about it. I met very respectable and nice people from Galway and Connemara today. They left their houses this morning at 5 a.m. and got on a bus when there were plenty of other things they could have done. I am grateful to them for coming. They came because they do not want a financial burden on their families but these people, living in the countryside, cherish the fact that they live there. Anybody with land does not just own it, they adore it. Anybody who does not own land does not appreciate or understand what I am saying. The people who own land and farm it do not see it in the same way as somebody who owns a glass; although they own the land they are only holding it for future generations. They want to pass it on to sons and daughters in pristine condition. That is the case with anybody who owns land. All they ever wanted to do was improve it and now they are being told that they cannot do that either, that they will have to apply for planning permission to open a drain or to knock a ditch. That is why people are angry and that is why politicians on the Opposition side of the House are excited and energised. We are trying to stand up for people. The Minister was inclined to snigger at the contributions of Opposition Members but he should remember that when he does that he is sniggering at the people outside of this House. They are people whom we respect and whom we are in the House to represent. I took offence at the suggestion that people did not care about the countryside. We want clean water as well as anyone else. Why, at a time when local authorities are guilty of polluting our waterways are we going after people with septic tanks and letting local authorities off scot free even though they have inadequate systems in place for towns and villages? They are the ones polluting the waterways not the people with septic tanks. I support amendment No. 2. Because of the Minister's contributions, not only is he the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government but he is also the Minister for total confusion, because that is what he is creating.
As someone who lives in an urban area the Minister is probably surprised to see me speak on the Bill. I got figures the other day which indicated that approximately 19,500 people in Dublin have septic tanks. In my local authority area the figure is 5,000. The constituency I represent, Dublin South-West, covers rural areas such as Bohernabreena and Brittas. It contains the Blessington Lakes catchment area which is used for the provision of water for the Dublin area. A stringent approach is taken to planning applications in that regard. It is natural that people are concerned about what may be coming down the line. They are seeking clarity. It is difficult for people to understand how they have to pay the tax but in some cases, literally 100 yards down the road, people are linked up to the main sewer. Deputies referred to standards. That is the double standard that people cannot understand. No effort or support has been forthcoming from the local authority or the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to try to bring those people into either the water or sewerage schemes. It would be helpful if the Minister could signal that supports would be forthcoming or that an action plan would be put in place for those who are caught in such a situation.
Tallaght is a new city yet people in the middle of Tallaght have a septic tank. I raised the matter with the local authority but I have been told there is no funding available or planning in that regard. I accept that the Minister has the required majority to implement the legislation but if the work is not done today as part of the overall package it must be done in the future. We must connect people with septic tanks to the mains system. Many of the people to whom I refer are elderly. They are getting on in years or they do not have the financial wherewithal to do the work. We all want to see a top class, clean water system but we should not penalise people who are in this situation. Many of the families concerned have lived in the area for hundreds of years. They would like not to be reliant on wells, chemical toilets or septic tanks. They want to be connected to the mains system but there are no plans for that. I accept that rural areas are a separate issue. I sympathise with those affected but this is an aspect of the debate that has not been aired. I would like the Minister to respond to it at some stage.
I support the amendment, which was tabled in good faith. It does not do the debate justice when the Minister refers to the contents of previous documents. All of us in the Opposition are trying to do the best we can for people in rural communities.
The Deputies are frightening people.
I am part of a rural community. I grew up in a small cottage in a rural area where toilets and septic tanks were only introduced in the 1960s. I can remember when there were no toilets. Many of my neighbours' houses were built on perhaps one eighth of an acre or less. In the 1960s they put in their own makeshift septic tanks. From 1975 onwards the planning regulations were introduced specifying that the minimum size of a site must be a quarter of an acre. That became half an acre and it is in excess of that currently.
A number of houses were built on a laneway close to the village of Fenit. It was an old village itself at one time. A total of 15 or 20 small cottages were built on a site about the size of the Chamber. The owners put in their own septic tanks at the time. I tried to help them connect to the main sewer which passes their front door. The Minister might remember that I raised the issue previously. The cost per house for them to connect a pipe from their own septic tank to be connected by the county council to the public sewer was €10,120. The people concerned are in their late 60s or early 70s and have lived there all their lives. They cannot afford to do the work. They will not be compliant with any of the standards introduced between 1975 and 2009. They do not have the frontage or the space. Inevitably, if they want to be legally compliant it will cost them €10,120 to join up with the public sewer. That is one example from the small area where I live. I am sure that similar situations will arise all over the country.
The Minister commented on people having to be compliant with the new standards, whenever we see them. I am concerned that no financial hardship would be imposed on people. What does the Minister mean by "financial hardship"? Is he saying that he will put a grant system in place to ensure that people will have access to funding to help them become compliant? Will it be the case that, as happened in many areas in the past, it will depend on whom one knows to approach a Deputy, Minister or someone who could try to resolve the issue? Will the system be means tested? We need to know what the Minister is thinking.
This is stroke politics.
It is very unfair to us when we are trying to debate this in good faith with the Minister and he will not tell us what he means by "financial hardship". It does not make sense. I do not wish us to continue in this manner. There was great hope when the Government was elected in February of last year. People said that we needed a change. They were sick of what went before. The rhetoric in the lead-up to the election from Fine Gael and Labour suggested a new beginning. We were led to expect transparency, honesty, openness and fairness and that the Government would stand by the ordinary people and look after those most in need. Unfortunately, the record to date suggests otherwise. I do not take solace in saying that, for the sake of attacking the Government. I find it incomprehensible to say the least that we paid €1.25 billion today to a toxic bank yet we do not know what the term "financial hardship" means in respect of people who have come all the way from Connemara and other parts of the west to protest outside the Houses. They could return home tonight knowing that, by being here today, they have been given answers to questions that have concerned them and many others across rural Ireland.
Irrespective of whether the Minister knows it, people residing in rural Ireland feel discriminated against. They have been neglected politically and have found themselves being caught for everything. One cannot even go for a pint because it would put one off the road. There are no public services left in most of rural Ireland. Small post offices, Garda barracks and small shops are gone.
With respect, the Deputy is moving away from the amendment.
Now comes the septic tank issue, which is of significant concern to people in rural Ireland. We want to get away from the Paddy the Plasterer politics that we endured in the House for a long time. The Minister has an opportunity. When he gets to his feet in five or ten minutes' time, he can tell us what he means by "no financial hardship". He can allay many of the concerns of those who have come all the way from the west at their own expense. If he does so, it would be a good day's work and I would be the first to agree that he was providing transparency. If he does not do so, he is confirming the opinions of many people.
We need certainty about whether a grant procedure will be made available to meet the cost of remedial works. It would remove a major problem. According to my colleague, Deputy Stanley, the Minister stated that compliance works or the updating of septic tanks would be exempt from the planning process. If so, it is welcome, as it was a major concern.
I stated that six months ago.
The Minister did not.
The Minister told us only a few days ago that he was checking into it.
I have stated it approximately six different times. I cannot repeat everything for each Deputy.
He stated it on Committee Stage last week.
He has made many remarks and subsequently contradicted them.
I have stated it several times.
Order, please.
I am glad to hear that.
Where is it written down?
On the Dáil record, if the Deputy would read it.
It is on the record of the debate. Many of the Government's statements in the House have been incorrect.
We could also show the House the record of the debate on the 2003 Bill in which Deputy Ó Cuív was involved.
I welcome the Minister's public statement of it today, but I want him to state that there will be no cost to anyone who must undertake remedial work to upgrade his or her septic tank. I reaffirm the absolute commitment of every Member who has spoken to good, uncontaminated water. We will support whatever remedial works are necessary to bring that about, but it cannot be at a cost to these people.
Anyone who has applied for planning permission since 1975 has needed to comply with regulations lest the application be refused. People have done everything required of them legally. The regulations and standards have changed significantly since 1975. People were granted permission before 2009, yet that year's standards for septic tanks and percolation systems would render many of them non-compliant. Many people are concerned about this issue and do not know what is coming down the tracks.
I have attended meetings with Deputy Healy-Rae and he can vouch that they were information meetings intended to explain the legislation. They were necessary to assure people. We are arguing these points because we engaged with the public. We spoke with people who would be the victims of what was coming down the tracks, given the possibility of remedial works to their septic tanks. We are bringing our experience to the Minister, just as the people from Galway and Connemara are doing.
We need to get to the bottom of the issue. Central to this is the question of what is meant by "no financial hardship". Who determines what it is? The easiest, simplest and most honest approach would be for the Minister to put in place a grant procedure to cover all necessary remedial works. On this and Committee Stage, the Minister stated that only a small number of septic tanks, as low as 10%, would need to be upgraded. Compared with the moneys that taxpayers have contributed to upgrading treatment plants, 10% is a very small amount. According to Deputy Mulherin, €3 million was spent on upgrading Galway's water treatment services following the outbreaks of recent years. Apparently, a good job has been done.
The main polluters are local authorities. I know this personally. I am certain the Minister will make available to local authorities whatever money is necessary to upgrade their treatment plants to the required standards, yet there is no mention on the record or in the legislation of what the Minister will make available to the ordinary citizen of rural Ireland.
"No financial hardship" is a throw-away remark that needs to be clarified. When the Minister rises, I hope he will tell the House that it means the cost of remedial works will be grant-aided in full. It would be necessary. The Minister stated that the 2009 standards would not apply, but will the applicable standards be below the 2009 levels? If so, will we be open to a concerned citizen or group taking a challenge to Europe, a year or two after which we will be back here facing the threat of more fines?
That is exactly what will happen if the Minister does what he says he will do.
Deputies, please.
All of these issues must be clarified by the Minister. It is up to him to do what is necessary and to remove this ambiguity and suspicion. He should not underestimate rural people's anger. Is he listening to me?
He has not listened to us for the past six months.
Order, please.
The Minister is from a large rural constituency, as is Deputy Tom Hayes. From the meetings in his constituency, the Deputy will be well aware of how people feel.
He does not go to them.
Is he not having one next week?
And we will tell the truth.
Deputy Martin Ferris has the floor.
If I could be allowed to finish, please. The Minister must clarify the issues I have raised. He could clear up everything today, we could return to our constituencies tonight, call meetings for tomorrow night and Monday night and tell people that he told us-----
(Interruptions).
If the Minister called meetings, we would attend them. We could tell people that the Minister told us he would introduce a grant procedure-----
Would we be invited?
No.
Ku Klux Klan.
Deputies, please. Deputy Martin Ferris has the floor.
Deputy Mattie McGrath has had his meeting.
The Members opposite are welcome any time.
No, I would not interfere.
The Deputy will not charge anyone an entrance fee either.
A public meeting should be public.
Deputy Martin Ferris stated that he would conclude.
I want the Minister to put this issue to bed.
Will he let us all, Government and Opposition Members alike, go back to our constituents and assure them there will be no financial hardship arising from these measures and that grants will be made available to those who need them? Will he also confirm that the standards to be applied will not be brought into question down the road? He is the only person who can give us the answers to these questions and put the matter to bed. It is nothing more than that to which we are entitled. People who set out from Galway at 5 a.m. to attend the debate in this Chamber are entitled to the truth, not simply to return home and tell their friends and family that the Minister spoke all day and said nothing.
Nothing but gibberish.
We need honest answers from the Minister. What does he mean when he says there will be no financial hardship? Will a grant facility be put in place? What are the standards that will apply in respect of inspections? If he answers these questions clearly, he will address people's concerns to their satisfaction.
The amendment relates to the publication of standards in respect of septic tank inspections. It strikes me that there could be nothing more democratic than what the Minister is proposing in this regard. He has undertaken to put the draft standards in the public arena and consult extensively on them. He has given a commitment that they will be approved only after that consultation process is completed and subject to approval by the Oireachtas.
I appeal for a degree of honesty in this debate from Members opposite. The Minister is faced with registering a defence in a court hearing which must be done, as I understand it, by early February. The legislation does not include detailed standards, but there is a clear commitment to publish them in draft form, consult the public thereon, including those who have taken the trouble to travel here today and rural communities throughout the State. All of this song and dance routine about the issue of standards does not stand up to scrutiny. What we are seeing is political posturing.
The point is that we do not know what the standards will be.
What are the standards?
The Minister has given an undertaking to consult on them.
After the fact.
(Interruptions).
Members should allow Deputy Michael Creed to continue without interruption.
There is none so blind as the one who will not see and none so deaf as the one who does not want to listen. The Minister has clearly stated he will consult extensively on the draft guidelines before bringing them back to the House for approval.
After the legislation is passed.
That is democracy in action in this the people's forum.
When did it ever happen before?
The Minister has an obligation to have a defence filed in a court hearing. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív knows from his time in government the repercussions of a failure to do so. He should be honest in this debate. Failure by the Minister to register a defence will expose taxpayers, both urban and rural, to very substantial fines. That is the reality.
By next August.
I did not interrupt Deputy Mattie McGrath and ask him to extend me the same courtesy. By next August there will be an adjudication on the defence lodged.
Maybe.
However, the defence must be lodged and it is this legislation.
Deputy Mattie McGrath's and more particularly Deputy Eamon Ó Cuív's fear is that every additional minute of this debate serves to expose their position as one of exploiting people's fears.
For God's sake.
The briefing document for the previous Government has exposed Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív's position. Deputy Michael Colreavy observed that it was regrettable that the previous Administration had not dealt with the issue. On the contrary, people in rural communities should breathe a sigh of relief that Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív and his colleagues in government did not deal with it. Their proposal was to inspect every household, to charge €300 for so doing and to have a standards-based legislative approach to our obligation in this regard. That is the document to which the Deputy and his colleagues in government were privy and it is the proposal for which Deputy Mattie McGrath voted.
I never saw such a proposal.
The Deputy voted for it in the programme for Government. Let us have some honesty.
The Deputy is some man to talk about honesty. His party tricked the people last February.
Order, please.
This debate is about clean water and having a good environment.
We all support that objective.
I accept that no Member is opposed to these objectives. However, in order to achieve them, there is a process we must go through. I also accept Deputy Martin Ferris's point that local authorities have some way to go to clean up their act. However, that does not mean we should turn a blind to every other possible source of pollution.
"Possible" is an important word.
It is. The Minister has said there will be a risk-based process of inspection.
How will that work?
The longer this debate goes on the more red-faced Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív must surely become. The Government of which he was a member proposed a far more stringent inspection process and a charge of €300.
(Interruptions).
Other Members will have their chance to speak. Deputy Michael Creed to continue, without interruption.
As a fall-back from the original position, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív also proposed that the Cavan model be implemented throughout the State.
I did not.
The Deputy's party colleagues in the Upper House brought forward an amendment to that effect, which was rejected by the Minister as far too onerous.
The Minister has done a good job in dealing with a very difficult situation which the previous Government chose to ignore for several years. We all have the same objective. In my constituency two public water supply schemes have been on boil notice for far too long because of faecal contamination.
Was it household contamination?
Will the Deputy listen to somebody else for one moment? It is no wonder, given the standard of debate we are seeing, that this House has fallen into such disrepute with the public. Let us have some honesty.
We do not know what standards will apply.
All the Deputy is doing is bringing the House into disrepute. Will he allow me to make my points?
I am listening.
If the Deputy disagrees, he should argue against them in a logical and rational fashion. However, all he wants to do is to exploit the fears of people living in rural areas. The people to whom I have spoken in rural areas are committed to their environment and water quality. There is a way to achieve this, part of which requires the Government to respond to the court ruling which found against the State and exposes us to very considerable financial penalties. This legislation constitutes a measured response. It will not involve a charge of €300 per household, as the previous Government proposed. It does not call for the inspection of every household, as the previous Government proposed. It will not require compliance with the most recent SR6 regulations, as the previous Government proposed.
We did not propose any of those measures.
Instead, there will be an objective assessment of cases under a risk-based model. We will publish the standards, engage in consultation thereon and bring them back to this House for approval. That is a reasonable and sensible approach to take. It is a very good day for rural Ireland that the Deputy did not deal with this issue when he was in government. If he had, rural householders would be facing a far more difficult situation.
I have three queries for the Minister, two of which I have raised before and which he refused to answer. First, when he says there will be no financial hardship for householders, does this mean grants will be available to assist them in bringing their septic tank up to the necessary standard? I trust this was not a throwaway remark by him. I am sure he would not speak loosely and that it is his intention to ensure there will be financial supports for home owners who, through no fault of their own, do not satisfy the new regulations.
My second question relates to the risk-based approach the Government proposes to take. If it is committed, as it should be, to providing clean water and having a healthy environment, how does it propose to assess which households should be tested? Perhaps there is a hard and fast rule or it is more vague; I do not know. If grants are made available for remediation measures, will the Government be tempted not to go too far in order to avoid costs, or is it serious about cleaning the water table?
Does the Minister believe a sum of €2,000 on average will be enough to fix septic tanks in need of remedial work? I have installed many septic tanks and would be surprised if such a sum was sufficient to remediate many of the septic tanks in County Wexford.
Deputy Michael Creed made some interesting points about what we are trying to achieve. The sensible thing to do for the people in dealing with this potential pollution source - one of many but a minor one - would be to prevent it from happening. To do this, certain actions will require to be taken. However, because of the manner in which the Government is going about it, this will not happen.
As in most things when it comes to the European Union, we are doing this not because we give a damn about water quality but because the European Union will beat us with a big financial stick if we do not, which in itself is not a reason to do anything. One should do something because it is right to do it, not because one will be fined or beaten with a stick for not doing so. If the Government approached this issue from that point of view, it would have a greater chance of bringing people along with it. As I understand it, we are doing this because if we do not, we will be fined.
It is the rule of law.
On standards, in telling us that whatever standard was acceptable previously will be okay, the Government has proved to me that this is not about water quality. I do not agree with this. We should have the highest standards possible. In 2005 contractors came to Castlerea, following a decision relating to pollution of watercourses in the area. They did not come to my house which is in an urban area to tell me that if I flushed my toilet and did not contribute to the €9.5 million sewage treatment scheme, I would be imprisoned. Also, they did not try to get away with complying with 1975 standards. Their task was to secure the water supply from potential pollution emanating from urban housing stock, in respect of which they put up the money and put in place the highest standards. No one in the town protested against the scheme because it was being paid for from their taxes and they were happy to go along with it. Just as the people outside the limits of the town do not want to pollute the water supply, those living in the town do not want to pollute it either.
If the Government wants this legislation to work on a quarter of an acre, half an acre or a ten acre site and to have the highest standards, it should pay for them, in the same way as those living in urban Ireland paid for them. My taxes went towards the cost of the sewage treatment scheme in my home town.
The Government should put its money where its mouth is.
The taxes of people living in Addergoole and Corrasluastia went towards meeting the cost of the urban scheme in my area and the same should happen in this case. There is money available. Regardless of how much money has been wasted, the Government still has €16 billion to spend on capital projects in the next four years. If even half the number of septic tanks in the country need to be upgraded, even in the most extreme case, at a cost of €10,000, the Government should do it. Regardless of the value it will achieve from the €16 billion it will spend on capital projects in the next four years, it will not obtain better value than it will from spending €1 billion, if that is what it takes, in this regard. It would secure watercourses from potential pollution. What an achievement that would be within a period of four years. Even if it was to cost €1 billion, half of this sum would come back to the State by way of taxes, VAT and so on. Also, there could be a saving by the removal from the dole queue of people who could be engaged in fitting these systems. It would be a win-win.
I have heard people in Connemara got out of bed at 5 a.m., 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. to protest here. I do not know what time they got up, but I do know that the people of Connemara would have camped outside overnight if that is what it would take to make their case. People would not have to protest if the Government took the sensible route. People living in rural Ireland do not want to pollute their water supply. They have to make up bottles for their babies with that water and to brush their teeth with it. They do not want to be criminalised or accused of being bad citizens, as they have been time and again, including in the newspaper of record. I am beginning to doubt if it deserves that title anymore. We were torn into by its journalists as though we were gurriers or backward. We want a clean water supply, but we also want to be treated equally. I come from a townland in which many people live. The Government paid for my sewage treatment scheme and should pay for the schemes of my brother and sister who live in the country. If it does, no one will have a problem with what it is doing and the European Union would be happy, which is what is important.
The debate has focused on standards and the prescribed date for publication of same. The legislation proposes that inspections will be carried out by inspectors licensed by the EPA. The Minister asked how we would solve this problem. I suggested some months ago to him that under-employed local authority engineers and technicians could do this work. Rather than go out with a stick with which to beat rural dwellers over the head, they could offer them advice and support in the of improvement of their systems.
I have previously raised the important size of sites issue with the Minister. His party, Fine Gael, represents large farmers. He knows this, as does Deputy Tom Hayes and Deputy Michael Creed who has left the Chamber. I will try not to be too political about this.
Land and gentry.
Please, Deputy.
Market research will show that all the people up the long avenue support Fine Gael, not Fianna Fáil.
They received 30,000 votes in Carlow-Kilkenny.
(Interruptions).
We on this side of the House must try to represent the people living in the Parnell cottages and those who were pushed off the green grass up into the rushes on the edges of bogs.
We got them this time.
You will not get them again.
These are the areas in which there is poor percolation. People living in small cottages, those who built small bungalows on half an acre or on small one quarter acre sites are the ones who will be caught out. I am pleading with the Minister to guarantee before we leave this Chamber this evening that people will not be forced to buy extra land. I have told him about areas in which the percolation occurs off-site. The people concerned must be given assurances. Like other rural Deputies, I need to be able to tell them that they will not have to buy extra land and that those on the edge of towns will be brought into group water schemes in towns.
The Deputy must conclude.
Will the Minister give a commitment that people living in rural areas will not have to buy extra land?
While €50 may not be a large amount of money to some, it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back for others. Sinn Féin fully supports the upgrading and maintenance of septic tanks. I also agree that groundwater and the environment should be protected. However, I recognise that some will simply not be able to meet the costs involved. A fund must, therefore, be established to assist householders who will be required to upgrade their systems. Hundreds of millions of State funds were invested in urban wastewater systems. The same support must now be given to rural householders required to improve their septic tanks.
I listened to Deputy Michael Creed's contribution. Today we have heard the pot calling the kettle black and vice versa.
So have we.
As for the call for honesty, everyone in the House and the country is aware that the Government was elected on a programme of change and a promise of a new beginning. However, it walked into office, took the clothes from the backs of Fianna Fáil and the Green Party and continued to implement the very same programmes.
In what section of the Bill is that included?
The Green Party is gone and Fianna Fáil is not far away from being gone.
The Government will be gone, too.
Please, Deputies.
Fianna Fáil is not far away from being gone either.
Austerity is the name of the game for both the Government and its predecessor. This is part of a suite of taxes, comprising the household tax, the water tax, the septic tank tax and the property tax, all of which have been imposed on ordinary, middle and low-income earners and poor people in general. Its purpose is to pay anonymous speculators and bondholders. The money raised is to be handed over to the banks and those who destroyed the country and brought about the recession. I note €1.25 billion was handed over today and that a further €1.2 billion will be handed over before the summer. Moreover, we will pay €3.1 billion in promissory notes to Anglo Irish Bank on 31 March. This is what the septic tank and other taxes are all about. They are about making ordinary people pay for a recession they had no hand, act or part in creating.
That is nonsense. The Deputy should stick to the Bill.
In what part of the Bill is this included?
Buckets of money are being shovelled to bondholders and speculators. Incidentally, the particular bondholders the Government paid today have made a huge killing-----
The Deputy is getting away from the Bill.
-----as they bought the bonds for 54 cent in the euro but got the full face value today.
The Deputy has become a financial expert overnight.
The people concerned have made almost €600 million in profit from the payment made by the Government today.
I remind the Deputy that we are on amendment No. 2. I call Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív for a limited contribution.
I will revert to the subject that will decide many things in people's lives.
Good man.
First, if memory serves, the legal advice was that the Government would be obliged to comply with the water framework directive of 2007 for the proposal to be immune from another attack by the European Court of Justice.
Is the Deputy checking this with the Newcastle cumann?
Please allow me to finish. No decisions had been made on any other proposals and if the Minister doubts my ability to effect change at the Cabinet table, he should ask his officials about the refreshed national spatial strategy that went to the Cabinet-----
The Deputy failed on this issue.
That is because it had not reverted to the Cabinet.
I simply observe that the Deputy failed.
As the Minister is aware, a grant would have been included in the heads of the Bill. The previous Government had discussed this issue and my acceptance of the Bill would have been contingent on the inclusion of such a grant. If the Minister doubts my ability in this regard, he should ask his officials.
What about universal inspections?
I will talk about the Minister for one minute.
Everyone would be inspected under the 2009 guidelines.
Deputy Ó Cuív, you only have one minute on this subject.
I presume I will-----
That is what the Deputy sought.
The answer is that according to section 70C of the principal Act as proposed in the Bill, whether one is inspected, one must comply with the standards.
Yes.
If one does not, under section 70C(2), "A person who contravenes paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1) commits an offence.” In other words, regardless of whether one is inspected, anyone in the country who does not comply with the standards set in the Bill will be committing an offence. Consequently, the point about the inspection behind which the Minister is hiding is a red herring.
One is not supposed to pollute water.
Second, the bottom line of the Bill is simple. Members are unable to find out from the Minister what the standards will be. He makes vague comments about agreements with the European Union, NGOs and so on. Since the beginning of this month I have submitted freedom of information requests to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government seeking details of all discussions the Minister and his departmental officials have had with the European Commission, NGOs and the EPA. I have done this because it would provide me with the information Members cannot glean from the Minister and which would tell them what was actually happening. If the Minister was so anxious for Members to be so informed, he would have instructed his officials immediately to ring my office to indicate it would pass the information to me quickly.
As the mover of the amendment, the Deputy will have more time. However, his time is up for now. I ask him to conclude as I must call Deputy Mattie McGrath.
What is needed is simple, but it should not be done on a means-tested basis because this pertains to citizenship. I must compliment Deputy Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan on his contribution in this regard. As a townie myself, I have made the point to the Minister that when one lives in a town, the facilities are upgraded without a means test. Moreover, the waste is taken away and maintenance conducted without a means test. When there is equality between urban and rural dwellers, the standards become irrelevant because, as the Deputy observed, the higher the standard, the better for everyone and the cleaner the water.
The Minister has stated I have exploited people at public meetings.
Which the Deputy has.
The meetings in Connemara were, with one exception, called by community groups.
The Deputy still exploited them.
The Minister's colleague, Deputy Kyne, attended those meetings and was not able to refute the reasonable points being made because he knew they were true.
I am delighted to note the return of my constituency colleague from Tipperary South, Deputy Tom Hayes, even though he has not spoken on the Bill.
On the amendment, please.
However, he is whispering continually. I once used to like a band called Big Tom and the Mainliners. However, this is like Big Tom, Big Phil and the Chancers because they are not addressing the Bill. They are trying poppycock and giving Members gobbledygook. Moreover, a public meeting is to be held in Dundrum, County Tipperary, which has been organised by Deputy Tom Hayes and which the Minister will attend. However, it is no longer public, as I cannot attend. In addition to being an elected Member of the House, I am also a member of the public in south Tipperary, yet I cannot attend the meeting. Why will the Minister not face me or attend a public event in a place in which he would have to answer the questions asked of him?
The Deputy should hold his own meeting.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív is dead right. When this legislation is enacted, all householders will be obliged to meet the standards laid down. Moreover, as Deputy Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan noted, all householders want to meet these standards. All Members seek is for the Minister to put his money where his mouth is, by giving grant-aid to all householders to upgrade to the highest standards possible. Moreover, for the Minister to try to suggest the EPA regulations of 2009 will not be applicable, or possibly even the EPA regulations of 2012 at this stage, is a complete fallacy. In the real world, be it agriculture or industry, the latest standards must apply, as why have standards otherwise? The Minister has suggested standards dating from 1957 or 1948 or whenever one wishes. While such suggestions might have washed at one time, they will not do so any more. The Minister and Deputy Tom Hayes know this better than do I.
Fine Gael represents the people who live up the long boreen or rather the long avenues with daffodils on the side. Although they are coming out early this year, they will wilt with the cold weather and the snow, just as Fine Gael will wilt before the next general election. This is because the people have only had to put up with it for ten or 11 months but already hate it with such a ferocity that they are waiting for it. It will not be getting many more votes from the cottiers or any place else from which they might have swung in and out last year in the big cars. It will not happen anymore because the people will not be caught again.
The Deputy's time has expired.
If Deputy Tom Hayes wants to hold a public meeting, the public should be allowed to attend. It should not be a public meeting mar dhea, for Fine Gael supporters in Dundrum, County Tipperary. Everyone should be allowed to come and ask questions and the Minister should answer the questions put by the public.
The Deputy is jealous.
Deputy Mattie McGrath might not understand the answers, as he has failed to so do for the last three or four months.
I wish to highlight one point because Members are picking the public information meetings organised. At one meeting I attended Councillor Toiréasa Ferris, a highly articulate young lady, spent at least 30 minutes giving clear information to the best of her ability in so far as she had such information.
Deputy Martin Ferris should note that Deputy Michael Healy-Rae is looking for preferences in the new five-seat constituency.
Unfortunately, the full facts and information are not available and that is how the Minister has made a mess of it.
I wish to highlight another issue and hope someone outside the House is taking note of this debate. Members are dealing with important issues and very important probing questions are being asked by Members on this side of the House. In a short time the division bells will ring and it will be like blue flies coming through the door. Members will rush in to vote against the Opposition at every opportunity, albeit not to listen to it. However, where are these blue flies now? Why are they not present in the Chamber to engage and participate in the debate and either support the amendment and try to justify what they are doing or give their reasons for opposing it? Why are they not present to engage in this very important debate? I particularly wish to address my comments to rural Deputies. Regardless of whether he or she supports the Government, any rural Deputy worth his or her salt should be present in the Chamber to debate this legislation. I warn those from rural areas who are going to offer the Government their blind support that they will be obliged to inform their constituents why they will be obliged to comply with the legislation at a time when the local authorities are the most major polluters.
Sinn Féin and other groups have been targeted and accused of misinformation. They have provided the best information available to them. Unfortunately, however, the Government fell short in this regard because it did not provide us with the correct information during this entire process. It is a bit rich for the Minister to refer to what he stated on Committee Stage. He only provided Members with the relevant information at that point. Why did he not supply such information months ago?
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I do not agree with the Minister that all the opposition to the legislation is coming from this side of the House. I attended a public meeting last night and noticed that many of his party's activists were present. Those individuals were quite concerned about the legislation, as it stood.
They were only spying.
Surely there should have been no need to send 20 or 30 of them to the meeting to spy on proceedings when a single individual would have sufficed. Why does the Minister not propose to publish the regulations to which the legislation will give rise? Why does the Bill state, "The Minister may, following consultation with the Agency, make regulations for the purposes of this Part"? Is the Minister honestly suggesting the EPA is not going to advise him to opt for its standards? Is he stating the EPA is going to suggest a less stringent set of standards will apply? Does he not agree that the agency will suggest the standards it will draw up should be implemented?
No one in the House would condone the pollution or contamination of water. Everyone agrees that there is a need to put in place a set of standards for wastewater treatment facilities throughout the country. However, we are seeking a system that is fair and equitable. Numerous Deputies on all sides have stated that when the guidelines are published, we must ensure arrangements to provide financial assistance will be put in place immediately rather than at a later stage. It must be written into the legislation that financial assistance will be provided for those who will be obliged to upgrade their wastewater treatment systems. The meeting I attended last night was addressed by an independent and very reputable engineer who stated it would cost in the region of €8,000 to €10,000 to upgrade wastewater treatment systems in County Westmeath. From where are people going to obtain that kind of money? Why is it that people who live in cities, towns and villages that are serviced by wastewater treatment facilities are not obliged to pay additional charges in order to have these facilities upgraded? However, those living in rural areas will, as matters stand, be forced to put their hands in their pockets. Those to whom I refer do not have the money to carry out upgrades. Before the legislation is enacted, there will be a need to indicate, in comprehensive terms, the funding that will be made available to them.
The debate has developed during the course of the day and in the past hour has focused very much on the provision of grants and how we are going to deliver whatever money is deemed necessary. Members are no longer focusing on compliance with the legislation or matters relating to public health-----
The Minister told us that-----
(Interruptions).
Deputies have had their say. Let us hear the Minister's reply.
The Minister is being disingenuous.
I have stated previously that I will do everything possible to ensure people do not experience financial hardship.
We asked the Minister for a definition.
The Minister should define what he means by "financial hardship".
That is exactly what I will do.
The Minister is being disingenuous.
He should be allowed to reply.
The Minister heckled us.
Deputy Martin Ferris has had a good run.
I asked a question and I am entitled to a reply.
I will provide the answer if the Deputy bides his time.
I am in the Chair and I will control proceedings. Members should not attempt to do so from the wings. The Minister to continue, without interruption.
It would be very difficult for me to sign a blank cheque for the provision of financial support without first being aware of the extent of the problem. I stated on Second Stage and again on Committee Stage that we would consider the provision of financial assistance for people when we became aware of the extent of the problem in 2013 following the carrying out of inspections. That is what we will do.
Is that not fair?
It is not.
(Interruptions).
I could not be any more fair.
A Cheann Comhairle, I got-----
Deputies on both sides should remain silent until the Minister concludes. If a Member wishes to speak, he or she should indicate to the Chair.
The Minister is asking us questions.
The Deputy will have a right to reply.
The debate has shifted to the level of grant assistance.
A very important matter.
It should be 100%. That was the amount available in the town in which I live.
Yes, that is the figure to which reference was made. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív indicated that he wanted to see universal inspection of septic tanks throughout the country on each occasion
We never-----
The information was contained in the relevant document.
That document has nothing to do with me.
Therefore, it has nothing to do with the Deputy. He was in government, but he had no responsibility for it.
No, it was the responsibility of the then Minister, but, as the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government is aware, there was no Government decision on the matter. Such decisions are not made until-----
The Deputy should desist.
As the Minister well knows, we never made a decision on that matter. As he is also aware, a Minister proposes and the Government disposes.
I will not ask the Deputy again. If he does not cease interrupting, he will be taking a walk.
I notice that I am continually picked on by the Chair, on Leaders' Questions and at other times.
The Deputy will be taking a walk. He is picked on because he keeps interrupting.
I do not. The Chair continually interrupts me.
Deputy Tom Hayes has been interrupting-----
The Deputy should mind his own business.
This is my business. Deputy Tom Hayes was interrupting me. Is there one rule for him and another for the rest of us?
No, that is not the position.
I would not expect it to be; therefore, I will respect the Chair's ruling.
I thank the Deputy. Perhaps he might allow the Minister to reply, without interruption. Members on both sides should desist from interrupting. Is that good enough for everyone?
Section 70C repeals the provisions contained in section 70 of the 2007 Act which was introduced by the Government of which Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív was a member. We are reducing the penalties introduced in that legislation from a maximum of €15 million in fines or five years in prison.
People will still be obliged to comply.
I am repealing the relevant provisions of the 2007 Act in order to ensure the extremely onerous penalties to which I refer will no longer apply. These penalties were approved by Deputies Mattie McGrath and Éamon Ó Cuív and all of those who were members of or supported the previous Fianna Fáil-led Government.
I did no such thing.
I am sure Deputy Michael Healy-Rae who was a councillor at the time was informed about this matter by his father, former Deputy Jackie Healy-Rae, who supported the legislation. Under the 2007 Act, the penalties are €15 million in fines and five years in prison if one does not comply with the standards relating to water quality. That is the record of the previous Government. I will not be including any such regime under the Bill before the House. People will be obliged to pay up to €5,000 in fines, but they will not be imprisoned.
The revenue from the registration charge which I have repeatedly stated will be once-off in nature will be paid directly to local authorities and used to finance the operation of the legislation. Deputy Mick Wallace can read into that what he will.
The Minister has still not answered my question.
We are doing more than has ever been done before in the context of regulations.
We know that.
I will be publishing the regulations in draft form. That has not happened previously in respect of legislation of this sort.
When will they be published?
The regulations will have to be approved, following four weeks of consultation, by the House.
The Minister should publish them now.
They will be published when the legislation has been enacted. However, I will not be commencing the legislation until such time as the regulations have been approved.
Publish them now in order that we might debate them.
I know Deputy Martin Ferris is anxious to see them.
I must inform Deputy Michael Healy-Rae that there is no confusion on my part. If he is adding to people's confusion, that is his problem. I will tell people the truth on any matters relating to rural areas. We have engaged in 35 hours of debate on this legislation and I would have expected the Deputy to have heard me, on several occasions, clarifying many issues of concern to him and Deputy Martin Ferris. Planning permission will not be required. I am surprised the Deputy heard that for the first time today because I have said it about five or six times.
I am not a member of the committee.
The Deputy could have heard it from Deputy Brian Stanley if he had an interest in this debate. There will be no need to purchase additional land to comply with the legislation. There will be no annual inspection charges or re-registration charges, as I mentioned in answering a parliamentary question from Deputy Michael Healy Rae yesterday. There will be no 2009 EPA-type regulations as Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív wanted and Fianna Fáil wanted when in government. There will be no army of inspectors. I know Deputy Brian Stanley's party may be used to armies, but local authority staff are the ones who will be in charge.
(Interruptions).
What is the Minister implying in mentioning armies?
I am sure the Deputy knows more about them than I do. He has been referring all day to an army of inspectors. There will be no army of inspectors. Local authority staff are the only ones who will be in charge of this.
They are ruthless.
They are. Deputies Seán Crowe, Brian Stanley, Mick Wallace, Thomas Pringle and several others, including the Member for east Cork, mentioned the possibility of group sewerage scheme grants being increased. I indicated on Committee Stage that I was prepared to look at this. There are many ribbon developments along the road in County Roscommon and elsewhere in respect of which people would like to receive additional financial support in order to bring them into public schemes. I said on Committee Stage that I was prepared to look at this issue during the course of 2012. Nobody has done this that before.
I did.
You did not.
I did.
It is €2,000 per house. You did it in CLÁR areas only.
At least, you are admitting-----
I ask Members to speak through the Chair, please.
The Deputy restricted it to people in his constituency in the west. I will look at the position in the rest of the country.
There were people in it from counties Meath and Kilkenny.
They are not in it now. Where are they?
That is because the Minister abolished it.
We did not. The Deputy did.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív wonders why I pick on him. He consistently interrupts.
The Minister is very provocative.
I am addressing the nonsense to which I have been listening for 35 hours.
It is nonsense to hear the Minister go on about armies.
The Deputy should not mention sewerage schemes when he could not even have his own in Kilgarvan included as a priority in Kerry County Council.
That is the second time the Minister has brought that up. If he is so worried about it, he should give us the money for it.
I cannot fund the scheme in Kilgarvan if Kerry County Council has not prioritised it.
The Minister can fund Deputy Tom Hayes's scheme in Golden and my scheme in Newcastle.
What was the Deputy's party doing for the last 20 years?
Deputy Michael Creed made a very valid point. We are fortunate that the regulations proposed by the previous Government fell with the general election; otherwise some of the costs about which Deputy Troy heard last night would have been introduced. It would cost €10,000 to complete the necessary upgrades; every septic tank would be inspected and we would have to comply with the 2009 EPA regulations. That is not what we are going to do under this Bill. I am not going to do what Fianna Fáil wanted to do when in government.
I announced funding of €22 million for many water schemes in rural Roscommon in the last few months. Deputy Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan did not mention this. A lot of money has been allocated to Connemara and County Roscommon since I became Minister, about which nobody else seemed to be bothered, to deal with many of the outstanding rural infrastructural problems in water and sewerage services. The figure is €22 million for County Roscommon and €38 million for Galway West.
Is there anything for south Leitrim?
The Deputy can write to me about it.
I would like to conclude by addressing the points made by Deputy Mick Wallace. I cannot guess what the cost of remediation will be, unlike what he is trying to do.
I am not guessing.
The Deputy mentioned a figure of €2,000.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív mentioned that figure.
He is an expert at misinformation. He has been picking numbers off the top of his head for the last six months. We are concentrating on areas of high risk. The issue of financial support will be considered when we know the extent of the problem. We will not know this until inspections have been carried out.
The spirit of the amendment tabled by Deputy Collins meets exactly what I suggested I would do on Committee Stage. I have checked it legally and been told that I cannot accept the wording. That is all that is between us. However, I agree with the spirit of the amendment which is in line with the commitment I gave on Committee Stage. I think Deputy Ó Cuív said we were making progress when I said that.
Yes.
I would like to be able to accept the amendment, but I have been told that the wording is not in line with the advice of the Attorney General.
Before I call on Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív to reply, is there anybody else who has not spoken twice?
I am no wiser after what the Minister said.
That is the Deputy's problem.
It is not my problem, it is the Minister's problem.
Please speak to the amendment. This is Report Stage.
I am speaking about the reply of the Minister to a suggestion I made to him. He said there would be no financial hardship, but he will not tell us what the position is. He has made reference to a blank cheque. What does he mean by this? He has stated he will put in place a grant process to help those who have to carry out remedial treatment works to their septic tank, but that is not the same as providing a blank cheque. It is a commitment that people will not be out of pocket through no fault of their own as a result of the introduction of the new standards and regulations that he will bring forward. That is all I am asking, but he will not answer the question.
It is so frustrating sitting here. People call it gobbledygook or bullshit. Please, excuse my language.
The Deputy will withdraw that word.
I am sorry; I withdraw it. They can call it whatever they want, but it is frustrating having to sit here and being told that it is the same as providing a blank cheque. That is not what a grant procedure is. Did farmers avail of a grant procedure? All the Minister has to say is that he is prepared to initiate a grant procedure to help those who will find themselves in difficulty as a result of having to undertake remedial treatment works following inspections. It is as simple as that. Will the Minister do this?
He did say that.
He did not.
He did.
No, he did not. The Deputy has suggested the Minister-----
Deputy Tom Hayes is not speaking. He is on the wings.
You should clip his wings.
(Interruptions).
The Minister will respond.
I ask the Minister if he is going to introduce a grant procedure?
Thank you. Has Deputy Seamus Healy spoken twice?
No; I will be brief. If the Minister was genuine, he could solve the problem by agreeing to defer the Bill until the consultation process has been completed and the draft regulations have been brought to the House for debate. There is no need for the Bill to be passed this week. It is clear that the information the Minister for Education and Skills gave to the House on 12 January is incorrect. We do not have to pass the legislation by 3 February. The earliest date when difficulties will arise will be sometime in the summer. If the Minister is being genuine about the regulations, it is open to him to defer the legislation and bring it back before the House in the summer when the consultation process has been completed, the regulations have been drafted and there will be an opportunity for everyone to debate them.
I agree with the Deputy. In fairness to the Minister, he seems to be working in the dark. He does not seem to know what he will do with septic tanks, how many will need work, what it will cost and how much he has to spend. We seem to be doing things backwards. It would be a great idea to take a look first. Surely it would have been much easier for the Minister to work forward.
We need the legislation to do that.
Given that nobody is to endure financial hardship, which is great news, how will this be achieved? I apologise if I am going on about funding again, but the Minister mentioned there would be no financial hardship. I am curious to know what the answer is.
The Deputy will know when the regulations are being implemented. The number of inspections carried out in 2013 will indicate the level of hardship or otherwise in complying with the regulations. Only then can we consider the question of financial assistance that will be required.
It is a guessing game.
It is not; it is prudent. I will repeat that I do not envisage anybody being in financial difficulty because of this. Mechanisms are in place to help people, but we cannot assess the matter properly until the inspections are carried out and we see the extent of the problem.
I want to make it absolutely clear that no Bill ever went to the Cabinet or was discussed by the Oireachtas apart from this one.
Then the Deputy should be honest about what he was proposing.
We should nail the disingenuousness of the Minister. Le bheith fíirinneach, níl ann ach cacamas, agus sin an méid atá ann.
Read the file.
When we started to analyse the Bill in October, I made out the issues to be addressed. One is the abolition of the registration charge and another is clarity on how inspections will be funded because local authorities have stated they do not have the money. Another issue is the abolition of the appeal fee. We have made progress on these issues, but we must push them over the line.
In fairness to the Minister, we have also made progress on the issue of standards. At least he is now saying - if I understand him correctly - that on foot of an amendment tabled by Deputy Niall Collins public and Oireachtas consultation will take place on the standards to apply to maintenance and upgrading prior to the Bill and registrations being commenced. If he confirms this today, it will be another small step on what has been a tortuous road in dealing with the issues I raised last October.
The Minister has confirmed that planning permission will not be required. I have not had a chance to check the section under which the Minister has stated he can implement this. I will check, but I would like the Minister to speak on the issue now. He has also firmly committed on numerous occasions on the floor of Dáil Éireann to ensuring nobody will have to purchase any land to comply with the legislation, even if all of his or her septic tank is located on a neighbour's land. I do not know how he will do this because he has not shown us, but he has given this commitment to which he will be held by all of us on this side of the House. This is a step in the right direction. However, we need confirmation on several other issues on which we have tabled amendments. These include a commitment that no environmental screening or environmental impact analysis will be needed.
When all of these issues are dealt with, one outstanding issue will remain and it is a very simple one. It is amazing to hear the Minister state he cannot give the people a blank cheque. The honest answer is that a blank cheque is given without any cost to the people living in urban Ireland that all such systems will be brought up to EU standards because otherwise the Minister will be fined, as he knows. What he is stating is he cannot state that if he does it for urban dwellers because the European would be on his tail, he will also have to do it for rural dwellers because there must be equality for everybody. The people whom he is asking to write a blank cheque are the ordinary people of rural Ireland who are being asked to do so without knowing what standards will be applied.
The Minister keeps telling us the standards will not be onerous. Section 70L states clearly that the standards the Minister will lay down are those that will be advised to him by the agency. He knows that if the agency proposes higher standards than he has introduced, the NGOs will be on the first aeroplane to Brussels to state he did not accept the advice of the expert agency in the country which was legally obliged to advise him. He is asking us to believe it will tell us the document it produced in 2009 is only rubbish; that the ordinary people of Ireland do not need to comply with it; that if all someone has is a hole in the ground that was dug in 1950, all that person must do is comply with the standards that applied at the time, which was nothing; and that if that person must upgrade his or her system, he or she will not be told to what standard it must be done. That is absolute nonsense and he knows it.
We had an easy way to resolve this dispute. I find it difficult to see how the EPA will advise the Minister to ditch the 2009 document which specifically states it refers to upgrades as well as existing systems.
It cannot and will not.
Perhaps the Minister is right and the EPA will tell us its code of practice from 2009 will not apply.
Can pigs fly?
However, we could have solved the problem prior to resuming Committee Stage because we proposed - the Minister voted it down - bringing in representatives of the EPA to ask them what advice it would give to the Minister on the regulations he would make under section 70L.
It is a smokescreen. The Minister did not want to bring it in.
Section 70L states:
The Minister may, following consultation with the Agency, make regulations for the purposes of this Part, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the regulations may make provision for—
(a) maintenance plans for domestic waste water treatment systems,
(b) performance standards for domestic waste water treatment systems,
(c) standards and procedures to apply in relation to emptying a domestic waste water treatment system and the disposal of the waste water and sludge derived therefrom...
Appendix G of the 2009 document outlines the EPA's prescription for maintenance works.
The Minister will be legally obliged to consult the agency. He knows that when a Minister must legally consult an expert agency such as the EPA, it is at his or her peril - it has been a problem for Ministers in the past - if he or she proposes standards lower than those proposed by the agency. In this case I guarantee, from long experience living in Connemara, that if the Minister proposes lower standards people will be on the next aeroplane to Brussels to complain about him and the European Union will back them.
The reason we are here is the ruling of the European Court of Justice, even though we were tackling in a very systematic way the problem of groundwater pollution by tackling the major sources such as agriculture and municipal wastewater systems. It would be well worth the Minister's while reading the analysis made for me on water quality in Ireland which shows that between 2004 and 2006 municipal sewage discharges were the cause of 18 major incidents. The inclusion of diffuse urban sources brings the number to 20. This concerns the removal of sewage by pipe rather than by tanker. There were no major incidents relating to single houses. Municipal sewage discharges were the cause of 129 incidents involving moderate pollution, while 25 were caused by diffuse urban sources, bringing the combined total to approximately 150. On-site wastewater treatment systems, including industrial systems, were the cause of two incidents involving moderate pollution. Municipal sewage discharges were involved in 160 incidents involving slight pollution, while the total number caused by diffuse urban sources was 177. Domestic and on-site water treatment systems, including industrial systems, accounted for six cases. The Government was investing where the big problems were to be found.
There it is.
That is why we spent €4.4 billion on the municipal system. However, those in Europe were not happy with that. They told us that despite the fact that we are going about this systematically and focusing on the major problem, it was not good enough and that we had to register every system in the country. If the Minister thinks that Europe is registering every system for the sake of ensuring they all comply with European standards under the 2007 waste directive, he is delusional. It was for that reason we believed the ordinary people of rural Ireland must be firewalled against a possible cost that European law might impose on them if a high standard was to be imposed, but also if a low standard was proposed.
To ensure we can discuss this again, and we are still not any clearer-----
I remind the Deputy we are on amendment No. 2.
I know, yes.
Therefore, he cannot ask questions because the Minister will not be able to reply. We have 56 amendments-----
It is a rhetorical question.
-----and we are on No. 2.
C'est la vie. We are talking about the future of people-----
Other Deputies have tabled amendments.
Absolutely, but I do not believe I was the speaker who spoke for the longest period.
I ask the Deputy to speak to the amendment, if he would not mind.
That does not seem to have been happening all day.
When I am in the Chair, I try to see to it.
Perhaps we would make more progress then because there are many other issues which I hope we will reach. The Minister might arrange for a Friday sitting this week to allow us continue the debate on the Bill and deal with every amendment because they are all very important.
The Deputy opposed those.
The Deputy is not always here.
No, a Government one that the Members opposite would have to attend.
Will the Deputy get on with it?
The Deputy opposed those.
No. We opposed the sham Friday sittings where all the Members opposite go home.
The Deputy had ten hours the previous day and he took up only seven.
The Deputy had six hours in committee.
Would you mind getting on with it, Deputy?
The Minister is not accepting the amendment but he has now indicated clearly, and he might nod his head if he is not allowed answer me verbally, that before he commences this legislation, we will have had a full opportunity to debate the regulations in regard to maintenance servicing and the operation and upgrading of domestic water systems, and that we will have an opportunity also to check whether Europe is satisfied that the standards the Minister laid down are immune from attack in the European courts. Do I take it the Minister agrees with that?
The Deputy knows what I agree with.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 84.
Tá
- Browne, John.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Niall.
- Colreavy, Michael.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Daly, Clare.
- Donnelly, Stephen S.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’.
- Fleming, Tom.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Halligan, John.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McDonald, Mary Lou.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGuinness, John.
- McLellan, Sandra.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Brien, Jonathan.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ross, Shane.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Troy, Robert.
- Wallace, Mick.
Níl
- Bannon, James.
- Barry, Tom.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Butler, Ray.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Conaghan, Michael.
- Conlan, Seán.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Conway, Ciara.
- Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deasy, John.
- Deering, Pat.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Anne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hannigan, Dominic.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Harris, Simon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Keating, Derek.
- Keaveney, Colm.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lawlor, Anthony.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- Lyons, John.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McFadden, Nicky.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- Maloney, Eamonn
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Murphy, Eoghan.
- Nash, Gerald.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Nolan, Derek.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- O’Donovan, Patrick.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Phelan, Ann.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Wall, Jack.
- Walsh, Brian.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Seán Ó Fearghaíl; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 3 is in the name of Deputy Niall Collins. Amendment No. 4 is an alternative to amendment No. 3; amendment No. 5 is related and an alternative to amendment No. 4, while amendment No. 13 is related to amendment No. 4. Therefore, amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 13 will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, to delete lines 7 and 8.
This amendment involves two clear issues, one of which is the removal of the omnibus section which provides for the making of regulations. As I have explained the reasons previously, I will not elaborate ad nauseam on my objection to such provisions which tend to be used extensively to create further regulations.
The other issue involved is the elimination of the registration fee. The Minister has told us that it will be a once-off fee of €50 forever more. He is putting in place this legal mechanism and, according to him, all that will ever be collected is €50 on a once-off basis. Multiplying 475,000 by €50 works out at a figure of at less than €30 million which the Department of Social Protection would spend in less than three hours on one day. If the one-off charge of €50 is to remain forever, why is the Minister setting up a legal mechanism for a charge that, in the reality of State finances, is a drop in the ocean? Why go to the bother of collecting this fee that will yield less than €30 million? As the Minister has rowed back repeatedly on the fee but is leaving it there, my legitimate suspicion is that he has been advised to leave some figure in the legislation because it can be raised and changed in the future by a simply amendment.
My second objection, and the second reason for the amendment, is that it is extraordinary that the only people who have to register and pay for registering are the third of the country who have done everything for themselves until now. The two thirds of the population who live in the towns, villages and cities, who have always had basic provisions and upgrades done for free-----
No, they have not.
I will explain for the benefit of Deputy Mitchell. Anyone who built a new house and connected it to the system paid an average, in recent times, of €2,000 in development charges.
Many of Deputy Mitchell's constituents will be affected by this legislation if they have holiday homes in the west. She had better warn them of what is coming down the track because I do not think they have kept their eyes on that particular ball. Knowing this part of Dublin as she and I know it, I can assure her that many people with holiday homes will be affected.
Is Deputy Ó Cuív starting an urban/rural divide?
She is the one who is anti-rural.
Deputy Ó Cuív is the one who claims Dublin pays nothing.
I am stating a fact. People who get their sewage taken away by a pipe, whether they are in villages, towns or cities-----
I don't think he should start spouting about who is subsidising whom, because he will not win that argument.
The idea of a State is that one pays taxes according to one's ability and the tax code, and the money is meant to be distributed on an equitable basis to those who need it. I do not understand the premise that urban people - I am an urban person by upbringing myself - should have a greater right than rural people to have their waste water taken away and treated and the system upgraded and maintained for free. I do not understand that premise, because we all pay tax on the same basis. I, as a Deputy, pay the same tax as Deputy Mitchell. In fact, I pay more taxes than she does.
How does Deputy Ó Cuív make that out?
I do. I do a lot more travelling than she does.
How does he know that?
Deputy Ó Cuív, please do not address other Members across the House about their taxes.
Does he know everything?
I thought I was meant to address the House.
He is a bloody know-all.
He was paying a lot more until two months ago.
Please address the amendment.
He is costing the country a fortune because he did not do this legislation.
It has not cost the country anything.
You are inviting disorder by addressing Members directly. Please proceed. Deputy Stanley is waiting patiently.
Deputy Stanley is a patient man.
And Deputy McGrath is biting at the bit.
What is wrong with that, if a whippet is tied when it should not be?
What is the hurry? A serious point of fundamental equity is being debated. The Minister is introducing a new inequity between urban and rural people. He is the one who is creating the urban/rural divide because he is saying that anyone who lives in septic tank land will have to pay the €50 registration charge and anyone who lives in urban land will not. I agree with Deputy Mitchell. It is wrong to create these urban/rural divides.
Deputy Ó Cuív is a past master at it.
Deputy Ó Cuív, please get on with it. You are inviting this sort of disorder. If you just address the issue through the Chair I will protect you.
I apologise.
I am addressing the Chair. I am sure the Chair is fully appreciative of my addressing the matter through the Chair.
Thank you, Deputy. If you get on with it we will all be happy.
I ask the Minister to do the sensible thing. The amount of money this fee will yield is minuscule. It will never be collected again from anyone who registers now. His only chance of any new source of income is from people building new houses. The Minister has come a long way.
No thanks to Deputy Ó Cuív.
He should take the final jump. If he does not, everyone will believe this provision is being left for the good public service reason that if any sum is included in primary legislation it is very easy to change the figures in a minor amendment in the future. The game is not worth the candle in terms of national finances. The Minister knows that. It would not keep sewerage systems in towns and villages going for two hours.
Therefore, I suggest that the Minister allow me to tick off one other item on the shopping list I had last November when the Bill was published.
Deputy Ó Cuív has been making it up every day as he goes along.
No, it is the same document and there are people who could testify to that. I apologise, a Cheann Comhairle, for not addressing the Chair. It is very provocative when the Minister interjects.
I know.
You appreciate that.
I would be the first to accept there has been hard work and slow steps. It would be a major step forward to get rid of this very minor provision, if we can trust the Minister, and I presume we can, that all he ever meant was that someone would pay €50 once and never again. I ask the Minister to reassure us on that point by abolishing the fee in total.
The €50 fee will not bring in any significant revenue. The Minister mentioned €17 million.
Does the Deputy want it to be abolished?
The Sinn Féin amendment proposes that the fee be abolished. If the fee is in the legislation it can be increased at any time by ministerial order. That is the thin end of a thick wedge. There will be no €50 charges for anything in this country. One would get very little for €50 if one was dealing with a statutory agency or with a governmental or any other body. The fear is that the fee will be increased.
In an earlier debate I referred to the people in Parnell cottages. I see the Minister is laughing. It is all very well for Deputies on the Fine Gael benches, who go up the long avenues. The people up the long avenues will be able to afford the fee.
I am surprised to hear the Deputy is a hypocrite.
The statistics are there. Fine Gael Deputies sit down and look at the research more than we do.
Deputy Stanley should look at the figures for Northern Ireland.
The facts are that Deputy Hogan's supporters will be able to pay the €50 charge but the people who are in the small cottages-----
What are they doing in Northern Ireland?
I will have that debate with the Minister. I told him that this morning.
Let us have it now.
I will not waste time on it now. Sinn Féin will debate the taxation system in Northern Ireland with the Minister or with anyone from his party any time.
The Deputy should not be a hypocrite. The charge is €150 in Northern Ireland.
The Minister should know the taxation system in the North is set in a town called London, which is on the neighbouring island called England, Scotland and Wales. It is not set in the Assembly in Belfast. I am surprised at a senior Minister in this Administration coming out with nonsense like that.
It is €150.
The people in the small cottages and bungalows will have difficulty-----
It is €150 in the North.
-----when this fee is increased to €200, €300, €400 or €500 in years to come.
Debate adjourned.