To pick up where we left off yesterday on the matter, the fee is set at €50. I accept that has been reduced. I acknowledge also that the fee for an appeal has been reduced from €200 to €20. We argue that there should not be a fee, but I acknowledge that a reduction has been agreed due to a combination of pressure from the groups campaigning, Members on the Opposition benches and goodwill on the part of the Minister. The concern with the fee is that it can be changed again in the future by a Minister.
Water Services (Amendment) Bill 2011 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed)
Debate resumed on amendment No. 3:
In page 5, to delete lines 7 and 8.
- (Deputy Niall Collins)
It is primary legislation.
A Government with a majority can change it.
That is different.
People in rural areas have already registered when they apply for planning permission. Local authorities have mapping systems for every rural house within their jurisdiction and functional area. The dots are on the maps. Local authorities know which houses are connected to septic tanks and mains sewers.
The Minister took me to task on the army of inspectors. He began to refer to other kinds of armies. The fact is that 70E provides for a cohort, army of inspectors, or whatever one likes to call them, to be licensed by the EPA. The point that Sinn Féin made to the Minister is that we already have technicians in local authorities with engineering qualifications. Many of them are now under-employed in that local authorities do not have much capital work ongoing currently. There are very few new capital works going on in water services or sanitary services or any kind of major civil engineering works. Those staff are part of the local authority structure and they are qualified and available. Those people could now be used to inspect septic tanks taking a risk-based approach, which we support, in particular in areas where there is a high risk of pollution and where water sources must be protected. Technicians could give advice and support to rural householders instead of creating a new army of inspectors to do the job.
A substantial number of people will carry out inspections. If the Minister provides for the appointment of inspectors by the EPA, they may not be as sensitive to local conditions and needs or even the people or community they are dealing with as local authority technicians or engineers. Local authorities have a good record of dealing with people within their own functional area. That needs to be considered. It is a pity that the Government is setting out to create a completely new regime under the jurisdiction of the EPA. Local authority technicians could work under the EPA. Local authorities are governed currently by EPA regulations and standards which provides a perfect fit without creating new positions or putting an extra burden on the Exchequer or rural householders.
I urge the Minister to amend the fee, which is unnecessary. It sets a precedent and is the thin end of a thick wedge. All legislation can be changed. We have seen previously what happens when Governments, in particular those with a large majority, such as is the case with the Government which fills two thirds of the House, are in a position to push through legislation and to change the requirements.
Dictator Phil.
There is big interest in Tom's meeting.
The question of grants has been raised. In the context of the amendments the Government has not been forthcoming. The Minister has made vague references to what he might do. He said he will examine the matter in 2013. The issue is causing huge concern. If people do not have the wherewithal to upgrade, the issue of grants will concern them. The Government has used the National Pensions Reserve Fund to bail out the banks and so on. We should look to the European Investment Bank which loans money at low interest rates and wants to invest in small and large infrastructural projects. Its funding could stimulate local building industries, while helping householders, local authorities and the Government to sort out the problem of pollution in rural areas.
Yesterday I mentioned the Minister's culpability in his campaigning around the country on the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill. When he was not doing this-----
Where did I go?
Stick to the amendment, please.
My point relates to the €50 charge-----
We have an hour and a half to discuss more than 50 amendments. In the interests of fairness, I ask Members to stick to them.
My point relates to the €50 charge. When the Minister was not campaigning on the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill, he was campaigning on the issue of the €50 million e-voting machines.
We got rid of them.
With the €50 registration charge we will collect half the cost of the e-voting machines, but it is unnecessary. People are being asked to pay the €100 household charge. The Department has designed an online payments system and a manual form for those who wish to pay over the counter. I am sure it has engaged consultants and incurred significant costs in designing a system to collect the €100 charge from 1.6 million households. Every household with a septic tank will need to pay the household charge. In the Department's wisdom and the spirit of promoting leaner government and the more efficient delivery of public services, why did it not design a dual system?
I am not prepared. Will the Acting Chairman revert to me again?
The Deputy will be passing up his opportunity.
My colleague is generous. I cannot say anything, as he is in the Chair, but we will have plenty of time to discuss the matter at the public meeting to be held in Tipperary. I have checked and anyone can legally attend a public meeting and speak with the permission of the chairman. I do not know who will chair it, but I look forward to debating the issue.
Will the Deputy be allowed through the door?
Please allow Deputy Mattie McGrath to continue.
Will the Acting Chairman allow him to enter?
He will not be able to stop me. He can today, however, as I must respect what the Chair says.
Give the Deputy time to speak.
It is a pity that a Deputy had to to leave the House over the issue this morning. None of us wants to play games. The Minister knows this better than I do. We can joke about it, but it is a serious issue.
The Deputy is playing games all of the time.
The Acting Chairman also knows it, since people are attending his clinics also. We do not know what we are voting for. I have not been a Member for long, but I have been berated for previous legislation. This Bill is loose, as it sets no standards. Amendment No. 1 could have dealt with everything, as we would then have known what the standards and regulations would be. There would have been a sense of fairness.
I understand the Government's position and that it inherited this legislation from previous Governments, but we are where we are. People must be made to comply. It cannot be stated strongly enough that every politician and 99.9% of rural and urban dwellers want clean water, to which they have a constitutional right. People who have their own system paid a great deal of money to install and maintain it to a high standard. If systems give trouble, they are normally in close proximity to houses. They were much closer prior to the regulations being introduced.
The kernel of the issue is regulation. However, no one knows what an inspection will entail. I have spoken with my county council. I am sure the Acting Chairman has also. It knows nothing about the matter. It is not ignorant, but it does not know whether it will police this issue. Last night the Minister stated inspections would be carried out primarily by county council officials. That is welcome, as the Minister can speak with most of the people involved. However, it is not welcome that an inspector's opinion will be enough to deem a system faulty. An amendment in my name addressed the phrase "likely to constitute a risk". If the inspector's opinion is that a system is faulty, he or she will give the householder a piece of paper on the day or subsequently describing the works to be carried out.
I welcome that the Minister has extended the period involved. I accept that we have made progress with the Bill, but if a householder is not happy with an inspector's opinion, the private engineer or assessor he or she will ask to inspect the system might deem it to be okay. This happens constantly. Tomorrow I will bring clients and their agents to meet senior planning officials and there will be healthy arguments and debates. If the pre-planning meetings do not go well, the agents and I - they are more technically qualified in their areas than I am - will reassess, seek further advice and might revert to the officials. We work with the county council to try to secure the best outcome for the constituent within the proper planning guidelines. Unfortunately, we are discussing the 2009 regulations.
No. Those were the Deputy's regulations, as he knows well.
Minister, please.
I am referring to planning issues. Tomorrow morning I will attend pre-planning meetings to discuss specific issues in County Tipperary. The question of percolation will be involved, but the meetings will mainly have to do with planning issues. Percolation systems must meet the 2009 guidelines, not the SR6. We cannot work around it. If it fails, there is no debate and one must move site, expand the existing site and so on. Under the Bill, one will have to take the opinion of the council official.
I welcome wholeheartedly the fact that the Minister has reduced the charge for an appeal from €200 to €20. One must appeal to the same local authority which will send another inspector, but inspectors are unlikely to go against their own. That is the nature of it. They will work in the same offices, be they the council's environment office, which is more than likely, or the environment and planning offices. According to the Minister, no planning offices will be involved. We will wait and see what is contained in the legislation.
I said-----
Please, one speaker at a time.
I am not trying to provoke the Minister, but that is what he stated several times. When that measure is not included in the legislation, we will be happy. He might even legislate for it before the meeting in Dundrum House Hotel. Councillor Jack Crowe might have a great deal to say about it. He is a good local representative.
Stick to the amendment, please.
I will. People do not know who I am talking about. If a householder is not happy with an evaluation, he or she must go to the District Court. This provision is anathema. Most country people never go to court. If they do, it is to face speeding fines, pollution charges, a charge of failing to cut hedges or animals trespassing or other little silly matters. Someone would need to be charged with breaking the law or, for example, requesting a public service vehicle, PSV, or liquor licence. Making people go to the District Court could involve open-ended costs. There is no point, therefore, in discussing a charge of €20 or €200. Someone might need to seek assistance. I am not blaming solicitors, although the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011 is before the House. A person might need to engage a junior counsel and, if he or she felt strongly enough about the issue, a senior counsel. He or she might need to move from the District Court to the Circuit Court and, possibly, the High Court or even farther. No one has considered this gravy train. Apart from the question of standards and the cost of upgrades, this is the elephant in the room. It is a serious issue which should be debated as calmly as possible.
I will conclude, as the Acting Chairman has been lenient.
A point was made by the Taoiseach yesterday morning and the Tánaiste this morning to the effect that the debate on Committee Stage finished early last week. No one can deny this, given the number of hours allotted. As I told the Minister yesterday, when the Vice Chairman of the committee returned to the meeting after dinner last week, having apparently received advice on the matter, he ruled out several amendments on the basis that they might involve a charge on the Exchequer. Likewise, I received a letter from the Ceann Comhairle yesterday morning indicating that my Report Stage amendment No. 36 was ruled out of order on the same basis.
Will Deputy Mattie McGrath confine his comments to the amendment? Other Members wish to speak.
Yes. The Minister assures us that people will not experience any financial hardship as a consequence of these provisions. Yet the letter I had from the Ceann Comhairle was concerned with reminding me that amendments must be ruled out of order where there is a potential charge on the Exchequer. Those two positions do not marry. The Ceann Comhairle did not make up the content of that letter; he got it from the Department or whoever advises on these matters. Likewise, my colleague, Deputy Noel Coonan, as Vice Chairman of the committee, was acting on advice when he came in after dinner last week and read out a list of amendments which were ruled out of order. That is part of the reason the Committee Stage debate finished early.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this amendment. I was working so late in my office in Agricultural House last night that I was almost locked in. The reason I was there so late was the time it took to deal with all of the queries I received in respect of yesterday's debate on this legislation. I thank the Minister for his attendance in the Chamber all day yesterday, but I am terribly disappointed with the answers we received from him. I said yesterday that he ought to have a new title of Minister for confusion. The queries I dealt with late into the night were from people who were closely monitoring the debate and tuned into every word the Minister said. What came up again and again was that we were not provided with answers.
That is nonsense.
I ask the Deputy, as I asked his colleague, Deputy Mattie McGrath, to confine his comments to the amendment. We must be fair to all the Members who wish to speak on what is a very serious legislative proposal.
I am well aware of its seriousness. Where are the rural Deputies who will support the Government on this proposal today? They too should appreciate its seriousness.
I am glad the Acting Chairman reminded me that the reason we are in such a rush today is that the Government is guillotining the debate. That is a disgrace. The Acting Chairman has pointed out how serious these proposals are. Yet the Government is guillotining the debate at 1.30 p.m. I was pleased that Deputy Mary Lou McDonald used her time this morning to try to get the answers from the Tánaiste which we failed to get from the Minister yesterday. Unfortunately, she did not succeed. When Deputy Martin Ferris sought answers, as he was perfectly entitled to do, he ended up being thrown out of the Chamber. That too is disgraceful. We are all here to represent the people who voted for us and we are merely seeking answers on their behalf.
I hope, even at this late hour, that the Minister might have a change of heart and inform the people of the information we are seeking on their behalf. I thanked him on Committee Stage for providing an answer to my question in regard to the registration fee, which, we are told, will be a once-off charge of €50. However, nobody knows who will be in what position next week, never mind in several years' time. How can the Minister assure the people that there will be no requirement to re-register and no additional fee? Once the system of registration is in place, by way of this legislation, who can say that an additional financial burden will not be imposed on people in the future?
The Minister did not answer our questions in regard to the inspection standards that will apply. It is not good enough for him to say that tanks must be working. He may not be in control at a future date when some new directive dictates that a new, higher standard will apply. The Minister or his successor - whoever is in office at the time - might have absolutely no say in the matter. By forcing people to register now and to reach a standard that is not yet defined, the Minister is opening them up to being slapped with higher charges at any time in the future. We have seen EU regulations being foisted upon us and Governments putting up their hands and saying there is no choice in the matter.
In regard to the guillotining of the debate, we were initially told that, in the absence of this legislation, the State would be subject to fines from the beginning of February. Thanks to Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív and those working with him - we did not find it out from the Government - we now know that the Commission has clearly stated that the fines will not kick in until the summer. As such, there is no reason that the debate must be guillotined today.
These are the issues of concern to people. If the Minister thinks he did a proper job yesterday and gave adequate information in response to the questions he was asked, he is greatly mistaken. I ask him again to tell the people the facts and exactly what is proposed by way of the provisions that will be railroaded through later today. He has failed in an extraordinary fashion to do so. A person of his experience should realise that it is much easier to answer a question at the beginning rather than fudging the issue and engaging in bluff and bluster. He should have set out the facts months ago.
Hear, hear.
I do not like to be critical in a personal way and, in fairness to the Minister, apart from this issue he is doing a great deal of good work. However, he has let himself down on this matter, never mind the rest of us.
In regard to the registration fee, the assurances we have been given are nothing but talk. Regardless of what the Minister says, we all know the fee will not be held at €50 but will instead increase, over a short period, until it reaches the €300 proposed by the Fianna Fáil Party in government.
And supported by Mattie and Michael.
(Interruptions).
Members must allow Deputy Seamus Healy to speak.
The Minister is drawing us in and inviting us to respond to him.
(Interruptions).
I ask both Deputy Mattie McGrath and the Minister to behave. Deputy Seamus Healy is in possession.
We all know it is the thin end of the wedge.
I am around a long time and so is the Minister. As an example of what is likely to happen, I remember well the introduction of refuse charges in south Tipperary. I was at the council meeting where they were introduced and where I voted against them. In the course of that debate a Fianna Fáil Party councillor stood up, took a box of matches from his pocket and threw it across the table at me, saying that the charges amounted only to the cost of one box of matches per week. This €50 registration charge probably equates to the price of a box of matches per week too, but the point is that the refuse charges soon increased way beyond that level. Most ordinary families with two or three children were soon paying €400 to local authorities, and they will pay a great deal more under the privatised system now in place in most counties.
The suggestion that this is a once-off charge is all talk.
We know what happens in these situations. This small fee will increase over time until it becomes the €300 proposed by Fianna Fáil. It will become part of a suite of charges payable in the main by low and middle income families who are already hard pressed, many of whom are unemployed. As in the case of the household charge, there will be no waiver for old age pensioners, social welfare recipients or people with huge mortgages. Ordinary families will be crucified by having to pay a whole suite of charges, including this one.
Let us not pretend this charge is a one-off. The Government should tell the truth in this regard. While this charge is currently set at a low rate it will increase to a substantial amount payable by ordinary people who are already paying for a crisis, the creation of which they had no hand, act or part in.
Like the previous speaker, I do not agree with the introduction of this fee. This is supposed to be about ensuring we have clean water rather than gathering more finance to be wasted by local authorities, which authorities are totally and utterly unaccountable. If one tries to make them accountable, one gets a slap on the wrist in the form of non-improvement of roads and so on. It is definitely not a system in which I believe another €50 or even a single red cent should be invested.
The more I listen to the Minister, the clearer it becomes that this is not about clean water, in particular when it comes to the collection of money likely to be spent on daft projects. If this was about clean water, the Minister would not be continually telling us that the standards that will apply will not be the 2009 standards. Is there something wrong with the 2009 standards? Are they too onerous? Is it not possible technologically to ensure septic tanks meet the 2009 standards? Surely, the higher the standard, the cleaner the water, and the cleaner the water the better for all of us. That is not the impression I am getting.
Any time anyone suggests that septic tanks will have to meet 2009 standards, they are told that will not be the case, as if somehow that is good news. If it is good news, why then are the 2009 standards in place? If not, why does the Government not change them? If septic tanks are to be required to meet standards, then the Government will have to give people the money to do the work, whatever it takes, including where the landholding is too small for a percolation system and another form of technology has to be used.
As usual, it is a case of let us try to cod Europe. We will run it down and around the next corner, tell everyone the reason it is great and then run it down again. We either want clean water or we do not. We are either going to be straight up with the rest of the world or we are not. If we are going to be straight up with it, we go for the best possible standards. I hope this Government wants to have in place the best possible standards. The Minister, in continually telling us that the 2009 standards will not apply, is saying this is not about water quality. The Government is codding people to get this legislation through.
My concern in this regard is the involvement of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. We are all aware from our involvement at local council level of the stringent conditions imposed by the EPA which have prohibited many people from acquiring planning permission. Many of the treatment plants installed during recent years cost, in terms of installation, testing and so on, in the region of €15,000 to €20,000. There is a grey area with regard to the criteria the inspectors will use and the subsequent policing measures. For instance, when percolation testing was initially introduced more than 20 years ago, it was under the regulations of the National Standards Authority of Ireland. Eolas, a subsidiary of the then Department of Education, was also involved. The regulations were basic but they were effective and were commonly known as Standard Recommendation 6, or SR6.
Some six or seven years ago, Kerry County Council was the first of many local authorities to implement the new EPA guidelines. A number of other councils did not adopt these guidelines until to two or three years ago. Under these guidelines, people from rural areas in Kerry were refused planning permission and were forced to move to small towns and villages. I foresee huge problems for people if the proposed inspections are to be undertaken by the EPA, given its stringent conditions. I respect what the Minister had to say in this regard on Committee Stage. It is to be hoped that he will build that into this legislation.
The Minister has been involved in politics for a long time and is a fair man. He came up through the local authority system and understands people's fears in relation to the inspections. I ask that he take these into account and ensure a tangible and solid provision in respect of inspections is included in the Bill. Also, the standards for inspections should be set by this House. I ask that, even at this late stage, the Minister outline the standards that will apply. Should there be any grey areas in this regard, the public will suffer the consequences. The EPA guidelines are not to be taken lightly. Also, all councils that have implemented them will be required to adhere to them. I ask the Minister to ensure the standards are acceptable and workable.
Most septic tanks are functioning properly. Many of them do not have treatment plants. Regular de-sludging may, however, be necessary, in respect of which the Minister might consider providing grant aid. The Minister has indicated that if the financial affairs of the country permit it, he would consider the introduction of grant aid in respect of those septic tanks requiring upgrade. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position in this regard.
I believe the Ombudsman's office is a more acceptable option than the courts in respect of appeals. Also, people are concerned about the possibility of huge fines being imposed on them. I ask that the Minister reconsider putting people through the ordeal of having to go to court. I refer to innocent people who have avoided being in that situation down through the years and generations and who take great pride in that fact. Members certainly should ensure this will not befall anyone.
Another matter pertains to group sewerage schemes. Perhaps the Minister will put in place funding in this regard as many areas now have clustered housing and I am sure there would be community involvement, whereby people would get together were appropriate grant aid available. This would solve many of the difficulties. I also ask the Minister to ensure there will not be a big rush of inspections into people's yards without giving proper notice to them. Great concern exists and people have cause for fear, which may be helped by a better sense of awareness. Hopefully this will be the case after today as Members clear up many of the clouds that hang over this measure.
Amendment No. 4 is to delete any reference to charging a registration fee. I am surprised that Sinn Féin has tabled such an amendment, considering what has happened in Northern Ireland.
It is a different regime.
I see. I thought Sinn Féin was a united Ireland party.
We hope to get rid of the Government and everyone can then come under this regime.
It is a different regime but Sinn Féin's position is not consistent with what it is doing in government in another jurisdiction. It should have understood that before tabling this amendment.
Some money is required to deal administratively with some of the costs involved in respect of local authority staff if one wishes to eliminate the prospect of any re-registration charge, to which I am committed, or of any annual inspection charge. Deputy Healy-Rae should be aware I have made this perfectly clear but, he chooses not to tell people about it.
Ultimately however, I assure Deputy Healy-Rae that the €50 charge is provided for in primary legislation and ask him to consider when that has been done previously. Consequently, any change will require an amendment to the Act and cannot be done on the whim of a Minister. In the future, a majority in the House may wish to bring forward a proposal to make a change, although no such proposal will be brought to the House during my term as Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government.
Would the Minister vote for it?
I cannot dictate what will happen under a future Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government but in primary legislation-----
Would the Minister vote for that?
The Deputy and I might not be in the House by then. However, my point is this is a completely different scenario-----
How would the Minister vote?
----- to that which applies to the refuse collection charge because Deputy Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan and I, if we still are Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, will have an opportunity to have a say about it.
How would the Minister vote?
Members do not have that say.
Would the Minister vote for it?
Deputy Flanagan, please allow the Minister to respond. I will allow you to come in then.
I am telling Deputy Flanagan what is in this legislation, although I acknowledge that might not suit him. However, the inclusion of a charge of up to €50 in primary legislation means it would require an Act of the Oireachtas to amend the proposed Act to change that.
How will the Minister vote?
I do not believe the Deputy appreciates that. On the household charge, I note Deputy Niall Collins made the valid point that all charges such as the household charge and the septic tank charge could have been lumped into a single charge. I would have loved to have done this but the Data Protection Commissioner, Mr. Billy Hawkes, has a say in all these matters. It seems he has a say in many matters and the call for the system-----
It is a quango.
Deputy Mattie McGrath may have a point. However, my point is it would require an amendment to the Data Protection Act to do what Deputy Niall Collins asked. He made a fair point and I would love to validate it.
On a point of order-----
The call for a single system is understandable.
Deputy Mattie McGrath, on a point of order.
On a point of information, as the Minister has introduced this topic, in south Tipperary alone, data have been provided through the county council and through statistics to the effect that 85 people had no system at all. This information must have come from the census. Consequently, the Data Protection Act can be used if one wishes to so do. Does the Minister know where this information came from? How was the figure of 85 people ascertained?
That was a point of information, but anyway.
That was a point of information. Deputy Healy-Rae may have spoken of bluff and confusion, but if that is the case, he is the cause of it. He should tell people the truth about what I have said in the Chamber and about what is contained in the legislation.
They are able to hear the Minister.
They are.
Deputy, please.
The Minister was trying to goad me.
Thankfully, people are able to hear me as well as the Deputy.
Yes, and they certainly were not happy with the Minister's comments.
The Deputy is not obliged to take sides. He is not obliged to tell him to start up but if the Deputy starts at that, I will suspend this House if the Minister is not allowed his two minutes. This is very important.
The Minister is personalising it.
There is no criminalisation of householders in this legislation. Deputy Healy-Rae will be familiar with a previous Bill that was passed by this House and which criminalised people. It provided for up to €15 million in fines and five years in jail. As no such proposals are contained in this legislation, he has got the wrong Bill for the wrong place, the wrong time and the wrong Government.
The Minister is not answering the questions.
May I continue?
The Minister is well able to interrupt.
I will allow the Deputy to respond in a few minutes.
I thank Deputy Tom Fleming for his measured contribution on his worries regarding the EPA guidelines. He is right and I will consider these guidelines in conjunction with the regulations the Department will bring forward. The EPA will be involved in training the staff, who will be local government staff.
Totally?
Local government will be in charge of the implementation of this measure. I do not know what numbers are employed by any particular local authority. If a local authority wishes and if it does not have the requisite staff, it may go outside.
That is more of it.
However, the local government system will be in charge of implementing this measure and I suspect that 99% of the time, local authorities will not need to go outside for staff. However, if they must go outside for assessors, as the previous Government sought to do in 2010, they will be able to so do. Nevertheless, I expect that local authorities have sufficient staff to implement this legislation without any difficulty.
On a point of order-----
I will allow the Deputy to respond in a minute. Is it a point of information or of order?
Of order.
Deputy Tom Fleming mentioned the standardisation of EPA guidelines, which is of national importance. This is a worry for people because sometimes there is a difference in interpretation, which is the reason I will do everything I can to ensure there is standardisation in respect of all aspects of implementation of this measure.
As for Deputy Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan, he is an environmentalist one day and the opposite the next.
While in his constituency, he declares himself to be pro-environment.
However, he does the opposite in this Chamber. This Bill is about-----
Deputy, please. Through the Chair.
The Minister is addressing me and not the Chair. Through the Chair, how am I not an environmentalist?
I will tell the Deputy. There has been a European Court of Justice judgment against Ireland that will cost €26,000 per day and €20 million in fines-----
That is not true. It might do.
Easy now, Mattie.
----- unless Ireland complies by implementing regulations to improve public health and to deal with the environmental issues that have been raised in this court case. The Deputy is against that.
Against what?
The Deputy is against the legislation. He is against public health-----
Does the Minister refer to the Water Services (Amendment) Bill?
Yes.
No, I am against the manner in which the Minister is implementing it.
The Deputy has voted against every measure brought in under this Bill.
I have voted against the whole idea of what the Minister is trying to do.
Deputy Flanagan, please. I will allow you to respond in a minute.
Deputy Flanagan voted against the Bill on Second Stage. He has voted against the principle of the Bill.
I voted against criminalising people who cannot afford to upgrade their systems.
The Deputy did not read the Bill.
As people will not be criminalised, this kind of hollow talk about being pro-environment in Roscommon while doing something different in the House-----
That is not true.
----- is absolute nonsense. The Deputy is a hypocrite when it comes to that.
Does the Minister think so?
Yes. I will conclude on that point.
I call Deputy Ó Cuív, to be followed by Deputy Stanley.
Is calling someone a hypocrite one of the phrases that is not allowed in this House? It would not want to be.
When the Deputy was mayor of Roscommon County Council, he could have sorted out the local authority.
Former councillors comprise the vast majority of Members.
I do not wish to prolong the debate on the section because the issues at stake are quite clear. I wish to move on to other important aspects of the Bill. As the Minister is aware, I set out my stall in detail at the outset as to the issues about which I have concerns. The Minister should explain the purpose of the charge to Members. He has stated its purpose is to pay for the cost of administering the legislation. However, if this is a once-off charge of €50, particularly when one takes into account that only a small proportion of houses built annually are one-off housing with private waste water systems, it is clear that no continuous income stream has been provided. Even the first flush of money, relative to the cost of implementing all this, will be very small. Therefore, the Minister should elucidate further on the purpose of the charge.
If 5,000 one-off houses were built throughout the country in the next six years, this would mean that approximately €10,000 would flow into the coffers of individual county councils. What is the purpose of the fee? If the fee is designed to provide the money necessary to run the system, then it will clearly not be adequate. Whereas I accept everything the Minister says to the effect that it can only be changed by means of primary legislation, most Departments are aware that it is easier to change a figure than it is to include a new section in legislation.
I cannot understand why those who have provided for themselves and borne all the relevant costs to date are the only citizens who will be obliged to pay the fee. Those who have everything done for them by the State are not being asked to pay it. That is execrable. I ask the Minister to reconsider the position and do the right thing in order that we might resolve this issue. When the previous Government was in power, the Minister, a member of the Green Party, probably drafted proposals but no decision was taken on such proposals by that Administration.
Deputy Ó Cuív has made his point. His time is exhausted. I call Deputy Stanley.
Such proposals never came before us in the-----
That is revisionism at its finest.
(Interruptions).
I never had sight of such proposals.
(Interruptions).
Deputy Mattie McGrath supported and voted with the Green Party all of the time.
There was no Bill and there were no proposals.
I suppose the Green Party was also responsible for bringing in the IMF.
Deputy Stanley has the floor.
The IMF should have been brought in the year before.
The Minister referred to the North. The taxation system for the North is decided upon in London.
The Deputy's party has no say in respect of it.
Will Sinn Féin abolish the North?
Sinn Féin is in power in Northern Ireland and decides on those rates.
If the Acting Chairman will call order, I will continue.
Deputy Stanley has the floor.
The taxation rates and structures relating to the North are set in London. My party wants to ensure that responsibility in this regard will be transferred to this island. If the Minister's party - which, I understand, is the united Ireland party - wants to assist us in this regard, we will gladly accept its help.
Absolutely.
That is agreed.
That is grand. Deputy Ó Cuív stated that those who helped themselves - namely, the 440,000 rural householders - are the only citizens who will be obliged to pay the registration charge. These people will also be obliged to pay the planned water tax because many of the group schemes are now connected to local authority water schemes. They must also pay bin charges. People in rural areas are obliged to pay higher bin charges than those who live in urban areas. There is also the issue of the household tax to consider. In addition, the cost of home heating oil, motor tax and school transport has increased. Those to whom I refer will have to pay a range of costs.
The costs in question are higher in the North.
I will debate that matter with the Minister when he puts all of the relevant information together.
The average of such costs in the North is £900.
I welcome what the Minister said in respect of local authority staff and I accept that he has made moves on certain matters. This is the first occasion on which I have heard him state that it will primarily be local authority staff who will carry out the inspections. I also welcome the fact that local authorities may not be obliged to look outside their existing staff complement in this regard.
As the Minister stated, he will not always occupy the office in which he currently finds himself. Things can change overnight. Once a matter is contemplated in primary legislation, a Minister or a Government can make changes in respect of it.
Deputy Stanley might be a Minister in the future.
It is disingenuous to suggest that this Bill was considered by the previous Government, which was led by Fianna Fáil. If it was put before that Government, I did not have sight of it.
That is why Deputy Mattie McGrath is now in Opposition. The previous Government did not tell him anything.
I monitored matters relating to that Government very carefully and anything to do with the Green Party I monitored extra carefully. I have no difficulty taking the word of Deputy Ó Cuív, who was a Minister in the previous Government, in respect of this matter. The Deputy is a man of impeccable standards. It is possible that the former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Mr. John Gormley, and his gurus were drafting proposals but I did not see them. I would have strongly opposed anything which came from Mr. Gormley.
The €50 charge is extremely important and it will be enshrined in legislation when the Bill is passed. The Minister might state that a Government would require a majority to change the fee. However, as Deputy Ó Cuív stated, it would be much easier to change the figure from €50 to €500 than it would be to draft a new section for insertion into the legislation. As far as I am concerned, the Minister is again engaging in sleight of hand in respect of this matter. The Minister has been involved in politics for much longer than I have been and he knows the score, as do the advisers sitting beside him.
The Minister has a vision for the future.
We do not know how long the Minister will be in office. We do not even know if we will all be around tomorrow. The Minister is aware of the position. His immediate predecessor was not long in the job and he was obliged to leave office for a particular reason. Things could change very quickly.
Deputy Ó Cuív was the previous Minister and he held the portfolio for six weeks.
I am not talking about the Minister. Deputy O'Donovan could not even attend the previous meeting held in Newcastlewest.
Another meeting is due to be held soon and Deputy Mattie McGrath will have an opportunity to put his views forward.
The next meeting will be held in Tipperary on Monday week. On the same night, there will be a meeting in Abbeyfeale. If the Deputy attends the meeting in Abbeyfeale, I will go to the one in Tipperary. I will stay in Tipperary and the Deputy can stay in Abbeyfeale. He should not come up with another excuse and state that he will not be able to attend the meeting. He should not hide from the people, he should tell the truth.
Deputy Mattie McGrath should tell the truth.
Deputy O'Donovan can attend the meeting in Abbeyfeale. I pride myself on telling the truth.
It is a pity things are going so wrong in this debate.
Perhaps the Deputy could assist me in that regard.
I will. The Minister was asked a number of questions but instead of answering them he has taken politics to an awful low.
Deputy Healy-Rae would know all about that.
Yes, the Deputy would know all about it.
To think that a senior Government Minister-----
Will the Deputy retract everything he said-----
Deputy Griffin should stop interrupting.
(Interruptions).
These interruptions should not shorten the amount of time available to me.
They will not .
When there is order, I will continue with my contribution.
Will Deputy Healy-Rae clarify the position for the people-----
I asked Deputy Griffin to stop interrupting. I will suspend the sitting if Deputies do not behave.
The Acting Chairman should throw Deputy Griffin out.
If this is the best the Government can do, well then it is a fair disgrace.
(Interruptions).
The Acting Chairman should throw Deputy Griffin out.
I will not continue until I have the floor.
The Deputy has the floor and I will protect him.
I will begin again because all my time has been used up. The Minister was asked questions and instead of answering them, he spent his time insulting those who asked them.
This has nothing to do with the amendments.
The Deputy should confine himself to the amendments.
This is very important. It is not acceptable for a senior Minister to call a Deputy a hypocrite, particularly when said Deputy came to the Chamber to ask questions.
I will cut the Deputy off if he does not stick to the amendments.
I will stick to them. The Minister referred to the standardisation of the EPA guidelines nationally but he failed to answer the question I put to him in that regard. He chose to completely ignore my query with regard to what will happen in the future. In the context of the mysterious standard that will apply, what is to prevent not the Government or the Minister of the day but rather Europe from stating that we must alter the guidelines?
What the Deputy is saying has nothing to do with the amendments.
I asked the Minister a question. Why is it so difficult for him to provide straight answers to straight questions?
The Deputy is using up his time.
All we are trying to do is get answers from the Minister but we are failing in that regard. It is really disappointing that the best he can do is to insult people. That is all he is doing and he has let himself down badly since this debate commenced yesterday. The Minister's performance falls very short of the mark.
I call the Minister.
I have not had an opportunity to speak.
I apologise, I did not think the Deputy had indicated.
It has been stated that we have nothing to worry about, that the fee is only €50 and that the approval of the Dáil would be required to increase it to €500. Is that meant to put us at ease? The soldiers on the Government benches are so willing they put their hands up for €1,000. It is hardly reassuring.
When did they do that?
Is the Minister finished?
Ignore it. The Deputy has the floor and I will protect him.
How is that meant to reassure people? The Government can vote to increase it, if it so wishes. The Minister might not be in office at a later stage because all Ministers seem to move around for whatever reason. Perhaps they want to meet different civil servants.
The Deputy is talking a load of rubbish.
When that happens, the Minister will be in the clear. He will be able to say that when he was Minister, it did not happen. When a zero is added is on, the figure will be €500.
More importantly, we are talking about environmental standards. The word "hypocrisy" was introduced to the debate. If the Minister really cares about water quality, what is his problem with the 2009 standards to which we do not have to adhere, as he keeps telling us? If we do not have to adhere to them, why are they in place? He can change them if he thinks they are too onerous. I ask him to, please, come clean now. What is his opinion on the standards? Are they too onerous? Is it too much hassle to keep water clean and is it all about codding the European Union again?
I concur with the remarks of Deputy Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan about the €50 registration charge, about which I spoke previously. I remember an election campaign not too long ago during which the Minister and his party told us that they would burn the bondholders-----
Stick to the amendment, please, Deputy.
I am responding to the Minister. They said there would not be another red cent for the banks.
What about the leader's allowance?
It was going to be all change. It was going to be Labour's way, not Frankfurt's way. Talk about hypocrisy.
The 2009 EPA regulations, which I support, are for new build. They will not be required to deal with this problem, even though Fianna Fáil and Deputies Mattie McGrath and Michael Healy-Rae want to implement them.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív regularly says there was no investment in rural Ireland to deal with water and wastewater matters. That might have been the case but not anymore. The Government of which he was a member - I supported him on this - spent €500 million from 2006 in dealing with water and wastewater matters in rural Ireland. We have also spent €2,000 per house in group sewerage schemes which need to be examined again. We also spend €2,000 where a household has a difficulty with its water pump or replacing its well. These are for rural people-----
If they can get them.
The Deputy has now advocated the abandonment of the equalisation principle under the local government fund. He knows that when motor tax is paid into the fund, there is an equalisation measure to transfer resources from urban Ireland to rural Ireland to deliver local government services. Has he forgetten about this? There has been a massive transfer of resources from urban Ireland to rural Ireland using the equalisation principle under the local government fund.
But the principle-----
The principle is what the Deputy wants to abandon. He is saying this measure is about abandoning investment in rural Ireland.
We never said such a thing.
If the Deputy did not know about this-----
I did know about it.
I will allow Deputy Eamon Ó Cuív to speak in 30 seconds.
Do I have the floor?
Deputy Eamon Ó Cuív will be called next because he moved the amendment.
There is no point in listening to the Minister.
Walk away.
Leave the House.
They walked away from the country.
Live on Galway Bay FM.
I know the information I have given to Deputy Eamon Ó Cuív is not satisfactory to him, but Kilkenny people do not walk off the pitch.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand," put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, lines 8 to 11, to delete all words from and including "and" in line 8 down to and including "fee." in line 11.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 35.
Tá
- Barry, Tom.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Burton, Joan.
- Butler, Ray.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Conlan, Seán.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Conway, Ciara.
- Creed, Michael.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Deering, Pat.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hannigan, Dominic.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Harris, Simon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Keating, Derek.
- Keaveney, Colm.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lawlor, Anthony.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- Lyons, John.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McFadden, Nicky.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Maloney, Eamonn.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Murphy, Dara.
- Murphy, Eoghan.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Nolan, Derek.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- O’Donovan, Patrick.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Perry, John.
- Phelan, Ann.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
- Walsh, Brian.
Níl
- Browne, John.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Niall.
- Colreavy, Michael.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Daly, Clare.
- Donnelly, Stephen S.
- Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Fleming, Tom.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- 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.
- Troy, Robert.
- Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Seán Ó Fearghaíl.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 5, to delete lines 22 to 24 and substitute the following:
"(5) A certificate of registration shall be valid for the lifetime of the property or not less than 40 years from the date on which it was issued.".
This debate has been acrimonious and people watching it on television are probably annoyed and are asking what we are doing here but if we got realistic answers from the Minister at any stage to any of the direct questions we would not have half the number of arguments. I tabled amendments on all Stages of the Bill but that would not have been necessary if we got some clarity.
The Minister said earlier that the €50 charge is already in the primary legislation, which I accept, but because it is in the primary legislation it is much easier to add a zero to that figure at some stage. He said he might not do it but he may do it.
I thought we dealt with that. Why is the Deputy repeating it?
Please allow Deputy McGrath continue.
I am outlining the basis for my proposal on the registration, if Deputy Lawlor wants to listen. I want the certificate of registration to be valid for 40 years or for the lifetime of the household. What is the reason for the Minister's clandestine measure that the person must re-register every five years? We had the discussion about re-registering with the water services provider whoever that might be. A future Government will not have to include that in a Bill because it is already in the primary legislation but it may have to change the €50 to €500. I do not want to repeat the point made by Deputy Healy-Rae about school children but everybody knows that a charge of €50 per registration will not pay for much in the way of a special regime to deal with this serious issue. The certificate of registration should be valid for the lifetime of the property and for not less than 40 years. The Minister might respond by saying that a householder could sell a house and move on but that is addressed in a financial facility in that one must get an engineer to issue a BER certificate. Will we have to get some other type of certificate for this issue, perhaps a SEWER certificate, when selling the house? It is the thin end of the wedge.
This is clever legislation drafted in a clandestine fashion to ensure the public, especially rural dwellers, can be tricked out of money. The principle that this is about clean water has been abandoned because if that were the case why would we have amendments about noise and other pollution? Those issues have nothing to do with clean water. Why is the Minister afraid of the 2009 standards which we all want and to which every new building must adhere? Why is he bringing in legislation that he said he will overrule and will not require planning permission? If the 2009 legislation is enforced it will be because of me, Deputy Eamon Ó Cuív, Deputy Niall Collins, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae and the Sinn Féin Party.
This is patent nonsense, and the Minister knows that. He has met representation from many people in his own constituency, which he is expected to do, and he is aware that the latest guidelines must be adhered to. If not there will be third party objections or, worse, the involvement of An Taisce or some of the environmental bodies. That is their brief. There are representatives of An Taisce throughout the country. I know some of them. I sit on a board and regulate with one of them who is a very good and active member. We might differ on some issues but his brief is to make submissions and, as a member of an NGO, travel to Brussels and complain if the standards are not maintained.
It is time this issue was dealt with honestly and openly. The Minister should stop the "codology" of being the big hard man who pushes legislation through the House, talks all of us down and says he is will set the standards. The nod and a wink job is no more. That kind of politics is gone.
That is for sure.
We know the realpolitik is that these agencies and quangos have the power, some rightly and others wrongly, and they will use it. I discussed that with a Member before he left the Chamber. The NGOs and An Taisce already are drafting their complaints to Brussels. They see the "codology" being peddled here by a senior Minister in the Government which will result in there not being any standards. If the process is working, it is fine but there is no definition of "working". It is a subjective term, and the Minister knows better than I do.
I support the amendment. Once a septic is registered it is on file in hard copy and on the computer system. If a house has a septic tank there should not be a need to re-register in five years. The suspicion is that it leaves the way open for additional charges to be imposed in the future. While I recognise that it has been removed from the Bill for now, and I welcome the fact that currently there is no registration fee, the fact that the person must re-register every five years creates a sense of fear.
I realise time is short but I have some questions for the Minister.
Are they on this amendment?
Yes. On the size of the site, could we could get a guarantee - I welcome the fact that the Minister said this publicly - that people will not have to buy extra land?
Is there a mechanism under which that can be guaranteed and also the exemption from planning permission? I welcome the Minister's statement on Committee Stage and again yesterday that he would provide certainty around that issue.
I do not wish to labour the point but it has been well made. What is the reason for the "five years" unless the house is sold? The only logic for the "five years" if the house is not sold is, as Departments do, to put the long-term plan in for the fee. This is done.
What size?
The Minister will find out in the same way as the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, is finding out because, as he said, he is out of practice. There is a long-term design here and, therefore, I ask the Minister to consider the issue and say that if one has registered, unless the house changes hands, there would not be a requirement for re-registering. I join Deputy Stanley in asking under what regulation, law or statutory instrument the Minister will ensure that no matter how small the site, people will not be required to buy land in respect of a septic tank and percolation area in another person's land. The Minister has said that and I take his word, but there must be some legal mechanism by which this can be done. Will he state the relevant Act or statutory instrument under which this can be done? Will an upgraded septic tank be required to have an environmental screening or an environmental impact analysis and will he tell the House the legal reference that gives him the power to do this, even in a special area of conservation, SAC?
We will deal with those issues under the planning code. We already gave the references on Committee Stage in respect of the planning code.
I accept that. We are looking at it. Will the Minister give Members the reference for the EIA screening and for the site?
Perhaps we can get the references.
We are on amendment No. 7.
I will come back to the Deputy with those references if references are required.
References are required.
I promise the Deputy I will come back with a response. However, I do not want any more scaremongering about the fact that we are setting up a system for re-registration charges.
What is the Minister talking about?
I am speaking to Deputy Ó Cuív, through the Chair. There is no re-registration charge required. It is a once-off charge. The primary legislation, which is this legislation, will have to be amended if the Deputy wants to change that. If Fianna Fáil or Sinn Féin in government in the future, supported by Deputy Mattie McGrath, want to do that, it is their business, but I will not do it.
Why is there re-registration?
It is prudent to upgrade one's information on what is happening in respect of ground water quality. As part of our defence, the European Commission would require us to keep abreast of developments in technology but also the condition of ground water. To give us that additional information, the re-registration process is necessary.
That seems to be what I had referred to under a previous amendment, that it is planning to put an onerous registration system in place and that it will get more complicated incrementally, as we have seen in the past.
Let us deal with what is in front of us. I cannot predict the future and neither can the Deputy. I should say to Deputy Mattie McGrath that his friends in An Taisce have issued a statement to support the legislation. Therefore, they are not going to the EU with another infringement case against Ireland on this legislation.
I say this in case the Deputy has not heard it. The EPA standards of 2009 are for new build.
The fact is that it also relates to existing septic tanks. It is in the regulation.
Where did the Deputy read it?
I am talking about what is actually written in the code. The code states that the COP also provides guidance to local authorities where an existing system is proposed to be upgraded. It does not only apply to new build. It is stated in the code in black and white.
They are the ones the Deputy wants.
Excuse me, Minister, I call Deputy Mattie McGrath.
With your indulgence, Deputy Ó Cuív asked a question to which I now have the answer.
Go ahead, Minister.
The repair and-or upgrading of an on-site waste water treatment system will be facilitated by the planning system from a number of perspectives, recognising that effective on-site waste water treatment and disposal arrangements are in the interests of proper planning and sustainable development in general.
That is it.
Where some aspect of the on-site waste water system and disposal is in need of repair, such works could be considered exempted development within the meaning of section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
Section 4(1)(h).
Is it possible to get a copy of that document?
Excuse me, Deputy, I will have to come back to you.
There would be different circumstances in the 2011 Bill.
It is incorporated in the 2010 Act. Therefore, the original reference comes through the legislation.
We are getting somewhere now.
The Minister can say we are scaremongering, but we are not. At a meeting in my county on Thursday of last week, a gentleman came from Galbally, County Limerick. He was not a farmer but lived in a cottage. Early in 2011, before any of this Bill was discussed, he had a visit from a county council official informing him that there had been a complaint that his septic tank system, which he had installed 27 years ago with planning permission, was too near a stream. He had adhered to the planning conditions approved by the county council. He was told he would have to move the tank and the percolation system in February 2011. He is in the middle of this work at present. The gentleman asked how he would pay for the assessment - Deputy Niall Collins might take up this issue - and the hire of specialists. In fairness to the technician from the county council, he said he would do it for him. He saved the gentleman a large sum of money. He worked three days in a row. He had to fill the hole pre-test, and got out of bed at 6 a.m. to fill the hole with a barrel of water. He conducted three 12 hour tests. This is happening in the real world. The Minister knows this as well as I do, and so does Deputy Paudie Coffey. The results were assessed in the office and the technician returned and told him what had to be done and the number of linear metres of percolation he had to install. There is no point in saying any standards will do. He had to do the work and pay planning fees. That was last year when he had to comply with 2009 EPA standards.
I know An Taisce supports the legislation but it is not supporting the nonsense the Minister portrays that there will be no standards. I will have a good chat with my friends on the telephone. I do not like talking to An Taisce about things but it is patent nonsense to say there will be no standards. This happened in Galbally, County Limerick, and it probably happened in many other places. I appreciate the Chair's indulgence.
In regard to the exemption from planning permission, I accept what the Minister has said that upgrades of septic tanks are exempt under planning legislation. We have to take the Minister's word. He has quoted the relevant section of the Act. Where a person is instructed by a local authority or an EPA appointed official to upgrade, say, a 1965 septic tank, will the upgrade have to be to 2009 standards?
As Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív is not present, I call the Minister to reply.
I have answered Deputy Stanley's question on many occasions. It will not be, and the regulations will point out how that will be done.
I did not hear that.
Will the Minister please repeat that for the Deputy as he did not hear him?
The 1965 tank that requires remediation will not have to comply-----
Sorry.
Perhaps the Deputy would listen.
I am listening.
I am answering Deputy Stanley's question.
We are all hear to listen.
Let us suppose there is a problem with a septic tank put in place in 1965. Deputy Stanley was interested to know whether this would have to comply with the 2009 standards and the EPA code. The answer is "No". The answer is that it will be seen in the regulations the Minister will publish how we are to overcome that and deal with it.
What about my man in Limerick?
I wish to ask the Minister-----
This is important.
Deputy, please, if you do not mind-----
What is the position with the 1965 standards? What about a tank installed in 1965 and fixed to meet the standards that applied in 1965 or in 1955, before there was planning permission. Is that okay? That is a crucial issue. The Minister has referred several times in recent days to the 2009 standards only applying to new houses. I accept his word on that and I hope he is right. However, I am asking about the case of someone who built a house in 1955 before planning permission was required and who put in a basic septic tank which is deemed to be causing pollution. If an inspection is carried out and they are required to carry out works, will the 1955 standards apply?
Minister, do not reply to that.
It has nothing to do with the amendment.
Deputy Ó Cuív is next.
The Minister has given an undertaking in respect of the regulations. I am satisfied on that issue now that we are going in a proper direction and proceeding in a systematic manner. I am content to wait and see what the EPA advises the Minister to publish. We will also be pressing at the committee that the EPA, An Taisce and such organisations should be invited in to advise the committee in advance in order that we inform ourselves of what will take place. We can plod through these matters in detail.
Deputy Stanley shares my concern on this issue. It would be most helpful to us if the Minister could give the references, in law or statutory instrument, in other words, in primary or secondary legislation, that exempt us in respect of site size and arrangements whereby people do not have a septic tank on their own land but rather on a neighbour's land, and in respect of environmental screening and possible environmental impact analysis. If the Minister does not have it to hand today, is it possible between now and the weekend to get for all Members the references to the particular legislative provisions that allow these exclusions? The Minister has given categorical assurances in this regard. We maintain that there must be some law to allow the Minister to do this. Will the Minister get us these references so that we can study them, analyse them and establish whether they stand up? If they are watertight, we will accept them. I believe this is a reasonable request and it would allow me to sign off on two more underlying issues I had with this Bill at the beginning.
It is all about Deputy Ó Cuív's issues and not about my issues.
I have an impression and I am possibly wrong so I wish to check it. When the Minister has reached the point where he has finished his inspections and when the remedial work is done, will it be true to say that some tanks in Ireland will still be contaminating the water table?
You cannot answer at the moment, Minister. I call Deputy McGrath.
That is a good question. If we had proper clarity on these questions each time, we would be right. It is not that I was not listening but I did not hear the answer the Minister gave to Deputy Stanley. He referred to going back to 1965 and before that. I am discussing the man in Limerick whose name I have before me. Deputy Collins will check it out for me anyway. This man received a visit last year, in February 2011, from a council official. He was informed there was an issue with the tank, for which he received planning permission 20 years previously. It was not granted anywhere near 1965, 1975 or 1985. It would have been during the 1990s. He built it to standard and installed it. He is a bachelor and on his own so there would not be any great pressure of usage on it. Apparently, someone objected to it because it was too near a stream. If it was too near the stream, I do not believe it caused the problem and neither does he. The tank was assessed and examined. There was no leakage, seepage or outfall but he was still obliged to move it. He was informed that as part of the tests he had to undergo, the tank had to come up to the 2009 levels. This is the kernel of it.
Like Deputy Ó Cuív, I am keen for the Minister to put it on the record of the House. He has made many commitments on the record of the House and in committee and I accept that. I wish to know the reference numbers in primary law and secondary law, that is, the relevant statutory instruments. What legislative provisions are in place to back up his claims?
Sometimes the Minister is positive but sometimes he is glib too. Deputy Coffey and I know, as do all the other Deputies, that the 2009 guidelines are being enforced daily. I will attend two site planning meetings tomorrow morning with an engineer and we will have problems because they are there for a reason. How can the Minister state that the pre-1965 standards apply?
Is it in Waterford or south Tipperary?
One is in Waterford and one is in my area. I might get Deputy Coffey to give me a hand with it because we share that territory, provided the Minister does not take him into Kilkenny. This is an important part of the legislation. I will press the amendment because it matters if one gets a certificate.
Deputy Wallace asked a pertinent point. What happens when this is all finished 20 years hence and when a good deal of money has been spent? I realise there is no open cheque but hardship cases will be billed by the Minister. There will be a great deal of money because there will be a great deal of hardship. Can the Minister state with any great degree of certainty that household septic tanks are causing any degree of pollution? The Minister knows this and it is the kernel of the situation. The county council and local authority systems are still polluting us, even though they have spent millions. This is a total red herring. Does the Minister believe the country people will accept this legislation or be bullied into submission once more by a Government that came to this House claiming openness and transparency and that it would sort out everything, but instead is attacking the ordinary people? The Minister knows this and that is the genesis of the legislation. I will put this to a vote.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 32.
Tá
- Barry, Tom.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Burton, Joan.
- Butler, Ray.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Joe.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Conlan, Seán.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Conway, Ciara.
- Creed, Michael.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Deering, Pat.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Anne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hannigan, Dominic.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Harris, Simon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Keating, Derek.
- Keaveney, Colm.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lawlor, Anthony.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- Lyons, John.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McFadden, Nicky.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Maloney, Eamonn.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Murphy, Dara.
- Murphy, Eoghan.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Nolan, Derek.
- Nulty, Patrick.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- O’Donovan, Patrick.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Perry, John.
- Phelan, Ann.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
- Walsh, Brian.
Níl
- Browne, John.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Niall.
- Colreavy, Michael.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Daly, Clare.
- Donnelly, Stephen S.
- Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Fleming, Tom.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McLellan, Sandra.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Brien, Jonathan.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ross, Shane.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Troy, Robert.
- Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Niall Collins and Thomas Pringle.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil of 25 January 2012: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 76; Níl, 34.
Tá
- Barry, Tom.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Burton, Joan.
- Butler, Ray.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Conlan, Seán.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Conway, Ciara.
- Creed, Michael.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Deering, Pat.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Anne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hannigan, Dominic.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Harris, Simon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Keating, Derek.
- Keaveney, Colm.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lawlor, Anthony.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- Lyons, John.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McFadden, Nicky.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Maloney, Eamonn.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Murphy, Dara.
- Murphy, Eoghan.
- 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.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
- Walsh, Brian.
Níl
- Browne, John.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Niall.
- Colreavy, Michael.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Daly, Clare.
- Donnelly, Stephen S.
- Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Fleming, Tom.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McDonald, Mary Lou.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McLellan, Sandra.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Brien, Jonathan.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ross, Shane.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Troy, Robert.
- Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Niall Collins.
Question declared carried.
The Bill is deemed by virtue of Article 20.2.2° of the Constitution to be a Bill initiated in Dáil Éireann. The Bill will now be sent to the Seanad.