Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 27 Jan 2004

Vol. 175 No. 3

Water Services Bill 2003: Second Stage.

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

I am pleased to bring the Water Services Bill 2003 before the House. I should first explain what exactly is meant by the term "water services" as it is used in the Bill. To appreciate the overall thrust of the Bill, it is helpful to visualise water services as pertaining to water in the pipe — that is, from the time, following abstraction, that it first enters a supply pipe to the point of its subsequent discharge again to the environment as treated waste water. The Bill, therefore, does not seek directly to take on board wider environmental or water resources issues, such as pollution control, water quality in its broadest sense, or river basin management. It is intended, however, that it will complement other legislation in this regard.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to set down a comprehensive modern legislative code governing functions, standards, obligations and practice concerning the planning, management and delivery of water supply and waste water collection and treatment services. To this end, it both consolidates and modernises the existing legislative code governing water services.

Publication of the Water Services Bill marked another milestone in the ongoing process of regulatory reform, which has been undertaken by the Government and in which my Department is playing a leading role. The process has already seen the planning code and the local government administrative code updated and consolidated by my Department. It is now the turn of water services.

This is the first consolidation and modernisation of water services law for over 120 years. Indeed, parts of the existing code date back over 150 years to 1847. While some of the older texts still stand as good law today, much of the language and concepts are outdated and arcane. The purpose of consolidating the legislative code is to provide an easily accessible compendium of provisions, governing all aspects of water services in a single text. Relevant provisions from some 15 enactments have been gathered together accordingly under one cover and updated as necessary to meet modern requirements. The Bill draws a line in the sand, behind which legislators, practitioners, the Judiciary or the general public need no longer search if they wish to ascertain the legal foundation for requirements on the provision of water services.

The Bill establishes the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government as the national authority for regulating the provision of water services. I envisage a hierarchical system of regulation and supervision extending from myself, through the water services authority sector and on to the group water services scheme sector where appropriate.

Section 30 sets out the functions of the Minister for this purpose. It places a duty on the Minister to facilitate the provision of safe and efficient water services and associated infrastructure. The Minister is also required to supervise and monitor the performance by water services authorities of their functions under the Act and is given responsibility for planning and supervision of investment in water services.

In order to carry out these functions, the Bill provides me with a broad range of powers, including the provision of guidance, issue of binding directions and monitoring of the performance by individual authorities of their functions, including their own supervisory functions as necessary. To assist and advise me in the performance of my functions the Bill also enables me formally to appoint consultative groups and committees. This will allow me to involve a broad cross-section of expertise and stakeholder interests in the ongoing evolution and implementation of policy and best current practice in water services.

Water services authorities are bound to comply with directions issued by me concerning the performance of their functions under the Bill. To assist me in the application of my powers in this regard, section 30(7) enables me to issue a compliance notice specifying corrective action to be taken by a water services authority.

Such notice could issue where I am satisfied that an authority is not performing one of its functions in a satisfactory manner, that it is not in compliance with a prescribed performance or quality standard or that its management or operational standards are inadequate. Provision is also included for related public notification and consultation procedures. While I regard the use of such powers as a form of last resort, they nevertheless offer a counterbalance to the more overt powers of supervision and enforcement available to water services authorities under Part 6 in the course of their supervision and licensing of the group water scheme sector. As such, their inclusion ensures equity in the treatment of all services providers under the Bill.

The main functions of water services authorities are set out in sections 31 and 32. These two sections provide the basic authority for water services authorities to deliver water services, assist others in providing water services and supervise the delivery of water services by other persons. The Minister is enabled to make regulations to specify performance criteria and quality standards which must be achieved with regard to those functions. It is envisaged that most of the EU directives concerning water services, including the drinking water directive and relevant elements of the urban waste water treatment directive, will be transposed into national law under these provisions.

Consistent with the EU drinking water directive, each water services authority is obliged to ensure that water intended for human consumption in its area meets prescribed standards and is provided with related powers to prohibit or restrict a water supply to protect public health or the environment. It is envisaged that these powers could be applied either to follow up on a water quality incident or at times of drought to protect the integrity of water supply and related eco-systems.

The Bill anticipates the ongoing involvement of public private partnerships in the provision of water services. Much of the language of the Bill is therefore couched in terms of actions being taken by a water services authority or other persons, acting jointly with it or on its behalf, in recognition of this growing operational reality.

I wish to nail on the head one erroneous view of PPPs. Neither public private partnerships nor related design-build-operate arrangements are precursors for privatisation of water services. Such partnership involves only the contracting in of private sector expertise to perform a function on behalf of a contracting authority. Assets remain fully in the ownership of the relevant authority or group water services scheme as the case may be. I regard such arrangements as the best and only way forward for development and renewal of water services infrastructure. They provide value for money, uniform application of latest specialist expertise and independent assurance that legal obligations with regard to the protection of human health and the environment are complied with in the course of the delivery of water services. To this end, all capital funding by my Department of new water supply and waste water treatment infrastructure is subject to assessment of the suitability of the project for procurement as a public private partnership.

There is nothing in the Water Services Bill which is intended to launch water services policy on a course towards privatisation. The Bill is drafted with a view to retaining the status quo and to providing the necessary supports to foster the development of current arrangements into a top class service. Privatisation of water services would require significant additional legislation to give the necessary powers to an independent regulator and is not on the agenda of this Bill. I wish to make it clear that it is not on my agenda at any stage. We have seen examples of privatisation in the area in other countries which have not delivered anything in the context of efficient and better water services. The public system we have is excellent and works extremely well.

While I am in the business of dismissing myths, I take this opportunity to refute suggestions from some quarters that this Bill either provides for or lays the groundwork for the reintroduction of domestic water charges. Such claims are without foundation. The Government's position on water charges is not changed one iota by this Bill. The Bill makes no provision whatsoever for water charges. The Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1997, which specifically precludes charging for domestic water services, continues to apply and is not affected by the Bill in any way. Assertions to the contrary are mischievous and serve only to distract from discussion on the true purpose and content of the Bill.

Development of a top class modern water services sector depends on having in place a strategic planning mechanism to review progress and chart the way forward. This is true for the private and public sectors alike. Strategic planning is the corner stone of all successful enterprises. It is clearly evident in the operations of many of our major companies and other public utilities and is equally relevant to water services.

Strategic planning has already been introduced on an informal basis in the rural water sector and each relevant local authority has in place a rural water plan in respect of the development of water services outside the main urban centres in its functional area. Section 36 of the Bill provides for the introduction of a similar operational planning and review cycle across rural and urban areas alike in the functional area of each water services authority.

Each water services authority is required to make a water services strategic plan for its functional area at intervals of six years, or less if necessary, and to submit it to my Department for approval. Plans will outline the situation in relation to water services in their area of application, both current and projected, and identify appropriate responses with a view to protecting human health and the environment and supporting ongoing sustainable development.

The strategic planning process will be based on a partnership between my Department and each water services authority to ensure that national and local water services agendas are fully synchronised. Such co-ordination is essential to ensure that water services plans are fully integrated into national investment planning for social and economic development. It will also ensure that plans for adjoining functional areas are properly integrated with each other, to maximise potential synergies and efficiencies and guard against any cumulative impacts which might have an adverse effect on sustainable development or environmental protection in the broader surrounding region.

Allied to planning for the provision of water services, the Bill also puts in place a framework of provisions to protect the integrity of water services distribution and collection networks. New powers in sections 55 and 61 enable a water services authority to require a developer to open up water supply pipes and drains for inspection prior to connection to its services. Water services authorities will have powers to specify technical requirements in relation to such connections and it will be an offence to make any such connection without the prior approval of the relevant water services authority.

In the same vein, the Bill also places new duty of care obligations on owners and occupiers with regard to the sustainable use of water services on their premises. Section 54 places a duty of care on owners to maintain the internal distribution systems of their premises in good repair and free from risk to human health. Water services authorities are provided with powers to direct owners to undertake remedial works, or may themselves carry out any necessary repairs and recover their costs.

Similarly, section 70 places a duty of care on occupiers and owners to ensure that waste water from their premises does not cause nuisance or risk to human health or the environment. It also prohibits discharge of anything to a sewer which would block or damage it, or adversely affect a waste water treatment process subsequently. Discharge of any polluting matter to a sewer provided solely for storm water collection is also prohibited.

Extensive new powers are also provided in section 56 for the purpose of conservation of water supplies. An authorised person is enabled to direct the owner or occupier of a premises to take corrective action to prevent water from being wasted or consumed in excessive amounts and will also have powers of direction regarding the restriction of water use. Exercise of these powers will be subject to appeal to the District Court, except in times of emergency, and the authorised person will have power to cut off or restrict supply pending compliance.

This suite of provisions on protection of the integrity of water services infrastructure is not alone essential from an environment and public health perspective, but also makes sound economic sense. Over the course of the current national development plan some €4.4 billion will be invested in the provision of water supply and waste water infrastructure. This is already producing very positive results. Unaccounted for water rates have dropped considerably, from almost 43% in Dublin to just under 29%, for example. Compliance with the 2005 target standards under the EU urban waste water treatment directive now stands at about 87%. It is vital that these new upgraded water services assets be protected in order to maximise the return on this very substantial investment and maintain the momentum of the ongoing water services investment programme. There is little point spending these vast sums without having in place adequate safeguards to ensure that the end product is not compromised.

The imposition of a duty of care on owners and occupiers is an essential prerequisite of sustainable rural development. Such provisions are a necessary precautionary measure which help to strike a sustainable balance between the potential environmental impacts of development and the social and economic benefits deriving from it. Accordingly, section 70 additionally obliges occupiers and owners to maintain septic tanks — referred to as treatment systems — in such condition as is necessary to avoid nuisance or risk to human health or the environment.

While the obligations I have just been outlining are placed by the Bill on consumers, that is not to say the Bill is in any way stacked against them. In fact, it has been drafted with a specific customer focus. Apart from a provision in section 32 which enables me to make regulations on procedures for dealing with consumer complaints, the Bill contains several new provisions to address long running problems which have been brought to the attention of my Department. Section 51 regulates the temporary interruption of water services and obliges water services providers to provide adequate advance notice of works except in the case of an emergency. Alternative supplies must be provided where domestic drinking water supplies are interrupted for more than 24 hours.

Of particular interest is the provision in section 43 which relates to the repair of the private service connections linking premises with sewers or water mains. Until now, responsibility for such repairs has rested with owners and occupiers which has resulted in particular problems and inconveniences where faults or breakage occurred outside the boundaries of premises. In the absence of clear legislative authority, sanitary authorities have experienced difficulty in providing assistance to households even where it was considered appropriate. This anomaly has been the subject of much complaint and has attracted adverse criticism from the Office of the Ombudsman. I am glad, therefore, to be in a position to provide in section 43 for a balanced package of measures to address the issue. This will enable water services authorities to intervene to repair or take into their own charge service connections where such action is considered appropriate.

It will be evident by now that the role of water services authorities under the Bill will not be solely regulatory and supervisory. The legislation also provides scope for water services authorities to take an active involvement in the development of services in their areas and to provide assistance for this purpose. The dual approach to the role of water services authorities is particularly evident in Part 6 of the Bill.

Problems with the quality of drinking water supplies have been of concern to all involved in the rural water sector for some time. A recent judgment against Ireland by the European Court of Justice for failing to implement fully the EU drinking water directive has added to the chorus of concern. My Department, in consultation with the national rural water monitoring committee, the National Federation of Group Water Schemes and relevant local authorities, has undertaken or facilitated a series of initiatives to resolve the issue. Major and record investment has been put in place under the rural water programme of the national development plan. Rural water strategic plans have been prepared for all relevant county councils. A national source-monitoring programme for schemes serving more than 50 persons has been completed and a comprehensive drinking water monitoring programme is currently underway in respect of them. While these initiatives are having a progressive, beneficial effect, it is evident that a stronger regulatory regime is required to ensure that compliance with relevant operational standards is actively enforced.

Accordingly, Part 6 of the Bill provides for the introduction of a system of licensing for the group scheme sector. Each water services authority will be the licensing authority for its functional area and it will be an offence for any person other than a water services authority to provide services other than in accordance with the terms of a water services licence. Licences will provide for the treatment standards, standards of service and monitoring and supervision arrangements necessary to ensure the provision of satisfactory water services and protect human health and the environment. It would be neither practical nor necessary to licence each of the 6,000 or so group water services schemes across the country. Many of them serve only two or three houses. To licence every one would place an inappropriate and excessive administrative burden on smaller schemes. Therefore, it is intended only to apply the licensing requirements of the Bill to the 750 or so larger schemes which serve more than 50 persons and at which the judgment of the European Court of Justice was directed. Provision is, therefore, included in section 79 to exempt smaller schemes from licensing. However, I am given complementary powers to make regulations as required to provide for alternative requirements in the registration of smaller schemes and their general compliance with specified standards.

Individual scheme management will have nothing to fear from the introduction of water services licensing. I intend that water services authorities will use their licensing powers proactively to support and nurture the development of best practice throughout the group water services scheme sector. The objective will be the progressive achievement of the necessary standards. The regime will be developmental and supportive rather than punitive. The licensing provisions of the Bill have been developed in full consultation with the National Federation of Group Water Schemes. When operational, they will provide a structured mechanism whereby each scheme can assure itself of compliance with its legal obligations.

I acknowledge the work being done to provide and bundle group water schemes. Many Members in this and the other House have seen the tremendous benefits which have accrued to local communities. These would not have been possible without the extremely hard work of the National Federation of Group Water Schemes. The federation has been fully involved in and supportive of the development of the licensing process which I am proposing in this Bill to ensure standards are put in place. I am very pleased by that and it is right that we should collectively acknowledge the excellent efforts of the federation.

Licensing is only one element of the matrix of provisions which will support the development of rural water services. Additional administrative powers are also included to enable a water services authority to intervene directly in the operation of a scheme where it considers that its expertise could be applied to the resolution of particular problems. Section 91 enables a water services authority to take over temporarily the operation and management of a waterworks or waste water works where it considers its operation could constitute a risk to public health or the environment or where a scheme experiences operational problems or is consistently in breach of a licence's provisions. Such powers, which may be exercised with or without consent, will provide for the establishment of a breathing space to allow individual schemes to continue to function as going concerns while particular problems are resolved. Water services authorities will also have powers under section 92 to facilitate the connection of individual schemes to public supply networks through neighbouring networks.

I have outlined to the House the provisions of the Bill which I consider to be key. In addition, Part 5 provides for necessary powers of access for installation, reading and maintenance of meters. It also makes provision in respect of related offences pertaining to interference with meters or fraudulent use of supplies. Part 7 of the Bill provides for general powers of acquisition for water services purposes and synchronises these functions fully with local authority powers of acquisition under the Planning and Development Act 2000. Existing powers of acquisition for water services purposes under the Public Health (Ireland) Act 1878 are, in turn, repealed. Such simplification and standardisation of procedures is a key objective of the Government's ongoing regulatory reform process.

Among the miscellaneous provisions set out in Part 8 are savers to prevent older, often obscure, pre-1922 statutes from frustrating the application of the legislation. This is a pragmatic, fail-safe device to avoid the undermining of the legislation by ancient and long-forgotten legal provisions enacted for another era but which may still, perversely, be applied, albeit against the interests of the common good, by a petitioner with a particular vested interest. A related provision in section 101 will render unenforceable any similarly old legislative provisions which could be interpreted to oblige a water services authority to provide services outside its functional area or at uneconomically low fixed prices.

I wish to record my appreciation of the valued input of the various sectoral interests which contributed to the development of this Bill. Key stakeholders, including business interests, the local authority sector, the national rural water monitoring committee, the National Federation of Group Water Schemes and other social partners, were consulted during the drafting process. They helped to ground the provisions of the Bill in a practical reality which reflects modern day operational practices and demands. A series of public discussion forums was organised throughout the country under the auspices of the National Federation of Group Water Schemes. These forums facilitated a wide-ranging exchange of views and helped to fine-tune the provisions of Part 6, in particular, to the needs of rural consumers.

I value and appreciate the involvement of everyone who has made a contribution to the Bill and I will welcome any further observations on the final text now that full details are in the public domain. While I will not necessarily be able to accommodate all views, I shall be open to consideration of amendments to improve the text of the Bill in the course of its passage through the Oireachtas. I submit the Bill for the consideration of Seanad Éireann in anticipation that its enactment will mark another milestone in the modernisation of our legislative code. As we observe the technology in the Chamber, it is interesting to reflect that when this exercise was last undertaken it was probably completed by candlelight in the course of short winter days like this and, as a Senator has commented, with a glass of port on the side. One can but wonder whether the draftsmen had any inkling of how long it would withstand the test of time and time alone will tell how long this 21st century revision will stand up. I trust that at the end of our deliberations, it will prove to be equally robust. I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome the Minister. I welcome this comprehensive Bill dealing with water services. As the Minister stated, it updates quite an amount of legislation dating back even to Victorian times which bears very little relevance to modern times. It is everybody's wish that a high level of professionalism is achieved in the water services sector to ensure that EU drinking water standards are complied with at all times. Despite what the Minister said, I am concerned that the Bill will pave the way for the privatisation of Ireland's water supply and that it may be used as a vehicle to introduce water charges but obviously not before the local elections. The Minister may say that the Bill will not change the position on water charges but I wonder whether we can believe anything this Government says. It has broken practically every promise made in the general election and deceived the electorate. It remains to be seen whether there will be more deceit and hidden agendas before the local elections.

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

Successive Governments have spent and continue to spend substantial sums on water services. The EU Cohesion Fund assisted greatly in co-financing many of these schemes throughout the country. The objectives of the fund's investment in water services were to facilitate the achievement of high environmental standards through the provision of adequate water supply and waste water infrastructure; support continuing economic and social development; secure compliance with EU and national water quality waste water standards; remedy and prevent future water pollution; and achieve improved management. The Bill's objectives are similar and it deals with many other areas that are of paramount importance to the future sustainable management of water services.

Water services authorities, as they are termed, seem to be packaged in such a way that they can easily be cut off from the umbrella of the local authority. It is this definition of functions and powers that leads me to question whether the ultimate goal of the Government is the privatisation of the water supply and its management. I have no problem with the requirement of a six-year strategic plan for the purpose of improvement, management and the operation of water services infrastructure. This is a sensible approach and one that can be measured to provide a maximum return on the significant investment of public finances in this area.

According to the EPA, some public water supplies are constantly in breach of standards for nitrates pollution. The EU nitrates directive was to be implemented fully by now but the Government's response was to ask for a further four year postponement before the full implementation of the directive. I ask the Minister to inform the House of the present position of the EU nitrates directive——

It is implemented.

When can the Minister ensure that the full public water supply is of good quality? Ireland's image has been tarnished at home and abroad because of the situation and the buck stops on the Minister's desk.

The Senator should speak to his party's spokesperson on agriculture.

The Minister has conceded that Ireland is not yet ready to meet the terms of the more stringent EU regulations on drinking water quality and I ask him to state when we will be in a position to comply fully with these regulations.

We already have.

Group water schemes contribute less than 10% of the country's water supply. Problems have been recorded with the quality of water from some such schemes although I acknowledge that major improvements continue to be made in this regard. It must also be acknowledged that the voluntary group schemes have played a significant role in rural areas and I hope the new licensing system will assist in their development and address the water quality issues in that sector.

The Minister will be aware that raw sewage is entering rivers and seas in all areas, which is a disgrace in this day and age. When is it envisaged that we will have sufficient waste water treatment plants to prevent raw sewage entering the waterways?

All politics are local and I am particularly interested in Waterford which is the Minister's constituency. The current situation there cannot be allowed to continue for much longer. The city council is still awaiting approval to proceed with work on two interceptor sewers for neighbourhoods Nos. 1 and 2 in the city. While early approval is expected, I ask the Minister to indicate when approval will finally be granted for this work which is necessary to pave the way for the waste water treatment plant, a vital piece of infrastructure. It has been stated that the waste water plant will be in operation by 2006. The Minister will be aware of the ongoing problems in Tramore, one of our premier tourist resorts. I ask the Minister to indicate the start and completion dates for the treatment plant in Tramore.

It has been started.

All to do with Waterford.

There are many other water services projects in Waterford requiring immediate attention. The water schemes in Dunmore East, Ardmore, Kilmacthomas, Portlaw, Rathgormack, Ring-Helvick and Ballinacourty and sewage schemes in Bunmahon, Ballyduff, Dunhill and Clashmore, to mention but a few awaiting departmental approval to proceed.

They are not waiting actually.

If there are so many projects awaiting approval in Waterford, I can imagine the numbers outstanding in the rest of the country.

The Senator is mistaken on all counts.

I am aware that the investment required will be immense but the benefits for the country and for future generations will be greater as a result. I ask the House to imagine the money that could be generated by tourism if the country had unpolluted waters, lakes and beaches.

Water is a scarce commodity. The recent pattern of development in recent years has placed substantial pressures on water services and many public supply systems have little or no spare capacity and are losing substantial volumes of water through leakage. The importance of water conservation cannot be overstated. Recent reports and studies have estimated that up to 47% of all water is unaccounted for. The nationwide water conservation programme is money well spent. I ask the Minister to indicate when this programme will be expanded and how successful it has been to date. There is no doubt that water conservation, in addition to its environmental benefits, is a practical, realistic and economic way of meeting much of the extra demand for water. This has been clearly demonstrated in Dublin where, since the mid-1990s, the requirements of exceptional growth in the city have been met by a combination of modest increases in supply and a comprehensive leakage control campaign. This must be the order of the day throughout the country. As I stated, water is too precious and too important a commodity to be wasted. It is essential that all water authorities develop and maintain a record of their schemes. I am sure that software can be developed, if it is not already in place, which would provide a wide range of information and integrate the broad areas of cost, quality, operations, infrastructure and reporting required under the Bill. If the authorities fulfil the role envisaged in this Bill, the further development and the national roll-out of this software is required. Is the necessary software in place nationally or is further development required in this regard?

The Bill's explanatory memorandum states that the Bill concerns itself only with the actual provision of water services. It does not seek to take on board wider environmental issues surrounding water resources, such as pollution control and water quality in its broadest sense. What is the point of the Bill if it excludes these most important areas, which are of major public interest?

Let me conclude with a quotation from Mark Twain who famously said that water taken in moderation cannot hurt anybody. What about ours?

I welcome the Minister. I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute on this Bill, which I welcome. We have had much good news from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in recent days. I welcome the Minister's announcement of increased allocations for non-national roads and his efforts, with this Bill, to consolidate legislation. This has not been done for more than 120 years.

I am a member of a rural group water scheme and have taken a great interest in group water schemes. There are 400 members in the scheme where I live. We are to be licensed and that is a welcome development. Small schemes will be exempt. Over the years, many rural group water schemes have carried out much necessary work and have received substantial help from county councils.

Many years ago Deputy Joe Higgins made the question of free water for everybody a big issue. He never thought of rural Ireland at the time nor did the former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, who caused much difficulty for rural Ireland given that there was no free domestic supply for people in rural areas. It was only with the recognition of the unfairness by Deputy Dempsey as Minister for the Environment and Local Government, the emergence of the National Federation of Water Schemes and the national rural monitoring committee and partnership and co-operation that we eventually got equality for people in rural areas who, in many cases, started water schemes themselves. We would not have water in many parts of Galway today were it not for the setting up of voluntary group water schemes by rural people, many of whom have since passed away. They were the real pioneers in providing water supply in towns and villages. Today it costs more than €1,000 to join a water scheme in rural Ireland but people are willing to make such a commitment. That is the reason we have a federation, monitoring committees and great support from the Department and from county councils.

In the past, people had to drill their own wells to provide themselves with water and that was very expensive. Now, they can often join up to a county council source. In many cases local authorities have taken over group water schemes. That is a welcome development because people cannot be expected to continue to work voluntarily on group water schemes. The Minister announced recently that more than €4 billion will be invested in water schemes up to the end of 2006. That is also very welcome.

Senator Cummins gave us a tour of Waterford.

One could not find a better place.

I will not give a similar tour of Galway, although I could. The Senator is very lucky to have a Minister of the calibre of Deputy Cullen in his constituency. I thank the Minister for the work he has done. For the first time, smaller towns and centres with a population of 1,000 are getting small sewerage schemes. I would like to see that figure further reduced in order to provide sewerage schemes in more smaller towns and villages. Most of the preliminary reports from Galway County Council suggest a figure of approximately €1 million per town or village, which is to be welcomed. I have seen a design, build and operate system in County Galway led by Meath County Council, which is a coincidence in many ways because some of the people in County Meath have Galway connections. I would like to see that system operating within counties in the context of smaller towns. We have had huge investment of large sums of money in places such as Mutton Island off Galway and Clifden. A smaller sum of €1 million would provide a sewerage scheme in smaller towns.

As the Minister stated, there have been some adverse judgments against Ireland by the European Court, which could result in heavy fines. That is another reason for ensuring we have good quality drinking water. I hope the group water schemes can play a role in this. Many small schemes are now forming co-operatives. I also welcome the provision of a package of €450 million for rural water schemes under the regional development programme.

On licensing, there are moves to involve county councils and local authorities more in the taking over of schemes. This could prove less expensive for committees working on a voluntary basis who bear a great burden of voluntary community work. This cannot continue. Many schemes have appointed caretakers, which is a very welcome development. The caretaker is trained in the maintenance and upkeep of schemes. Some schemes contain in the region of 500 or 600 houses. That is a big responsibility for a group scheme and for a caretaker. The Minister referred to section 91 which provides that a water service authority could temporarily take over the operation and management of a scheme. This is necessary if a group water scheme cannot deal with a serious problem. The advantages are clear when one considers what the alternative might be. From time to time we see notices in the newspaper or hear reports on local radio that a group water scheme has had to suspend activity because of a problem. It is therefore very important that the local authority has a role.

I would like to raise the question of balance in this legislation to which the Minister referred. Balance is needed between the work of group water schemes and local authorities now that licensing is to be introduced. I welcome the fact that the Minister is very much in favour of development. We have discussed the spatial strategy and planning issues in this House. I would like the housing strategy to be examined in the context of water services, waste management and waste water treatment. Along with many of my colleagues, I have encountered difficulties in getting planning in our towns and villages. We are often told that the necessary infrastructure is not in place. Development plans often refer to the provision of clusters of housing in towns or villages designated as new settlement centres. Although such centres are mentioned in the County Galway development county plan, we cannot get planning permission in towns and villages because of the lack of sewerage facilities. This problem also applies to the location in a town of industry or any other type of enterprise.

The actions of the Minister, Deputy Cullen, in respect of providing these services are very important. I could name many other towns which want the services he wants to provide. We take it that plans are in place. The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, keeps saying that the plan should be put together. Galway County Council has done that by way of preliminary report in different towns. It would be a very good idea to provide the design-build-operate system, or some low cost schemes, within a county. The previous Minister in this area, Deputy Noel Dempsey, approved a minor scheme in the small town of Williamstown. The reed-based sewerage scheme in the town was provided at approximately half of the cost of traditional sewerage schemes. I hope we can examine ways of providing small sewerage schemes in our towns and villages at low cost. Similar arguments have been made to me in respect of schools. There is a strong case for a waste treatment facility in my own village because it has two schools, at first and second levels.

The Minister spoke about section 70, which enables the local authority or the water service authority to prosecute offenders. It is important that large fines of up to €15 million should be in place. I welcome the fact that remedial works can be carried out, where necessary, and that people must provide redress for the pollution that is caused. This is very important. I also welcome the comments of the Minister on water wastage. There is an old network of pipes and pumps in many counties and there are problems with mains and networks. Local authorities and the group water schemes I mentioned are dealing with leakage. It is important that we say in the House that we should help such organisations to deal with the wastage of water. This is something we certainly do not want to see happening.

I am interested in Part 7 of the Bill, which relates to the power of acquisition. The Minister mentioned land purchases, which is one of the difficulties faced by group water schemes down the years. The owner of a site where there is a river or a well seemed to get water for free, traditionally. This was not always the subject of a legal agreement, however, which led to difficulties when there was a falling out between landowners and water scheme committees in many parts of the country. It is the type of issue John B. Keane may have written about. In certain cases, landowners decided not to allow the committee to go near a well or river, to fix a leak or to maintain a pump. This has to be clarified if we are to avoid further problems.

I would like to speak about pollution. It is necessary to protect human health, as the Minister has stated. We should examine the best way of quickly notifying consumers about water problems, for example by using newspapers and local radio. The Minister mentioned that the consumer is very important. Local radio is one of the best ways of letting people know that a problem exists. It is important to identify the source of contamination as quickly as possible when there is an incidence of water pollution and I hope we can do that. Many of those who work in the water supply service in a voluntary manner are anxious to stop doing so. They want local authorities to take over schemes and caretakers to be involved. It is very important that this is done quickly so that the word can get out.

It might sound unusual, but I am amazed by the inventive and imaginative use of FÁS schemes throughout the country. I note that such schemes are now used on water schemes. Water scheme committees received awards from FÁS some years ago for their work on FÁS schemes. It is a very good example of the importance of FÁS schemes. People who work on these schemes each week are able to come in at short notice to help out if there is a problem with a scheme. The Minister is aware that there can be many problems, but they are beginning to be dealt with. This Bill consolidates much of what we are talking about. I hope we will see the same co-operation in the future between the National Federation of Group Water Schemes, the national rural water monitoring committee and local authorities.

I will conclude by saying that I hope the Minister will be able to continue to provide money for the old pipe network, which is very important. The existing network in many counties is very old and the pumps might not always work. I hope the Minister will continue to fund the many improvements required. I thank the Minister for the interest he has shown in the treatment of water and waste water since he took office.

I welcome the Minister and congratulate him and his officials on this fine 100-page Bill, which I do not doubt was the cause of many sleepless nights and long weekends. There is a huge amount to discuss therein. I would like the Minister to reassure me about a basic question. When I studied the Bill, I noticed it provides for agreements to take over water works or waste water works, as well as for authorities to conduct licensing and metering. I immediately thought that the Bill might pave the way for privatisation, of which I am absolutely afraid. I do not approach this matter with an "-ism" on my shoulders, but I have examined what has happened in other countries. I feel, not on any kind of philosophical basis, that the privatisation of water services would be a major error in terms of the quality of life of the people of this country. There are many other reasons I am worried about such a privatisation. I ask the Minister to give an absolute, on the record, reassurance in that regard. I will accept an assurance from the Minister that it is not going in such a direction. I have deliberately taken such an interpretation from it because I want to raise this issue and seek the Minister's response.

I do not mean to interrupt the Senator, but I would like to remind him that I made this point clear at the start. Perhaps he was at a meeting at the time. The Bill does not deal with privatisation, but I went further in my original contribution by saying that there is no chance that I will consider the privatisation of water services. This has been a disaster in other countries and there is no way I will consider it here. What we are doing here is excellent and we will continue in such a direction. There is no prospect of privatisation.

I thank the Minister. I appreciate the fact that he has made such a commitment on the record. I listened to Senator Kitt's point about agreements to give free water to the owners of lands where water is found. I am sure Senators are aware of the hassle caused by such agreements in certain places, such as the Silent Valley in County Down. It had been agreed since 1920 or earlier that the authority would supply the inhabitants of the area with water free of charge. Since the process of privatisation of water services in the area started in recent times, however, those involved have found themselves in a total mess of court cases on the issue.

It is important that this consolidated legislation is passed. I am glad it has been brought to the Seanad to give us a chance to examine it in some detail. The Bill was badly needed and everyone should welcome the idea that underpins it. I compliment the Minister's officials for trawling through the legislation and trying to bring it together, whatever difficulties we may have with individual parts.

The issue of water quality and waste management is very important. It may sound a contradiction in terms, but I worry about the pollution of waste water. Those of us who live in the countryside and must get out the rods to clean our own pipes when they become blocked will always say that sewage is a far easier commodity to deal with than sink water waste, which can be horrific. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to introducing a regulation requiring eco-friendly washing powders although I know they are marginally more expensive. When the tax on plastic bags was introduced people asked whether it would ever work, but it did. This would be an important development. The amount of pollution going into the ground from horrible washing powders is causing difficulties. I ask the Minister to give this some consideration. It would ease the work of the various authorities envisaged in this legislation. The easy way to do this would be through the supply end. More and more people are using eco-friendly washing powders.

I have decided not to raise the question of the River Shannon today as I do not hold the Minister personally responsible for that, although there are other people I do hold responsible.

Thank God I escaped that one.

Section 49 refers to the discharge of sewage and waste from vessels. The sewage from vessels causes far fewer problems than their waste water. Vessels on the Shannon, or any of our inland waterways, should be required to use eco-friendly washing powders, washing-up liquids and soap. This would have a greater positive impact on the water than an improvement in sewage disposal. Sewage does not cause a significant problem in small quantities. In order for this to happen, however, eco-friendly products must be available. I recently investigated the availability of these products in small shops and supermarkets by the Shannon, and few stocked them. It would be easy to introduce a regulation on this matter. It would be welcomed and would do much good.

The Minister has included in section 49 a requirement for a map of works. This is long overdue. The difficulty is that we do not have a map of what is there at the moment. While doing research in the area of water pollution some months ago I spoke to some senior people in two of the large privatised water companies in the UK. When the question of sewerage systems and water mains came up, one person said the situation was appalling. He said he sometimes spent his weekends going from one old people's home to another seeking out retired county engineers, going down on his knees and pleading with them to try to remember the location of a water main between two towns. I am not making this up. The water companies know the location of the main pipes but not the smaller ones and there is huge wastage of water.

I am sure the Minister mentioned this problem in his speech, but I considered recently the amount of water seeping through the system. The system needs replacement. What would it cost to replace the network of pipes? It is akin to asking the length of a piece of string, but in general terms, how much would it take to replace the network infrastructure of water distribution around the country? This must be an important issue.

If the Senator is interested, he should consider what is being done in Dublin. It is phenomenal. The system is being mapped and the technology being used is incredible. It was found that many of the pipes had just disappeared — they had disintegrated entirely. Last year we gave €100 million in Dublin alone for restoration and conservation.

I appreciate the Minister's intervention; this information is very helpful. I am worried about one thing, however. If I were a member of al-Qaeda and I wanted to do real damage to a city I would block up the two ends of its sewerage system and light a match. That is all it would take. There is a build-up of methane and other gases in sewerage systems around the UK and, I am sure, in Ireland. There are major movements taking place. There is also a danger——

Did the Senator say major movements?

We can deal with blockages, but this will be a problem some day.

Another problem that arises from not having a proper map of all sewerage networks around the country is the huge growth in the rat population. Much of this may be to do with the sewerage systems, although I cannot prove this in any way. People say that one is never more than ten feet from a rat at any time.

Especially in politics.

In here we all qualify, so it makes no difference.

I am glad I am 30 feet from the Senator.

That is even with my own colleagues gone. Mapping is crucial for the future. We must know what work can be done, where the leaks are and the amount of wastage.

I recently spoke to a man who was having a row with the local authority of a Munster city. He maintained that he was being charged too much for water and that he could not possibly be using that amount in his business. The local authority argued back and they were on the point of going to court about the matter when the man had a bright idea. He called in a plumber and turned off the water supply to his business. Within two hours the local authority was inundated with calls from the businesses on the street behind, which were all now without water. They had all been tapping into his supply. I have no doubt this is happening all over the place. People are obtaining water free while others pay for water they are not using.

The Senator is right — it is not all leakage. It is leakage of a different kind.

I support the comments of Senator Kitt about the development of sewerage schemes in small towns, which is crucial. I admit that over the past 14 years the developments in this area have been extraordinary. I have watched schemes being built and developed, especially along the Shannon, and have seen how they have improved matters. This must be the future. I do not understand bio-systems completely. I am conscious of what the Minister said recently about one-off rural housing and I agree with 90% of it — we must open up that area a little more. However, there must be improvements in dealing with waste water and sewage from individual houses through bio-systems. I have never seen any indication of how this affects the surrounding soil. How much soil is contaminated and how much must be left pure around the bio-system? Does the system clean the water completely?

It depends on the quality of the soil.

Every domestic sewage system should be tertiary. There is no reason people cannot have two septic tanks beside each other. A single septic tank does not treat the water — it simply goes straight through. The water should go through one septic tank divided into two, another septic tank divided into two and a filter area before being released. This would help prevent any pollution from domestic water.

In terms of the various developments around the country, does the strategic planning, which is part of the process, tie into general planning? We are all in favour of strategic planning. Last week I spoke to a Minister who had come from Perth, where she had been looking at the development of a new area north of the city. It was decided a few years ago to extend the city and the area was being prepared. When she went to view the proposed new town, which was hundreds of acres in size, she saw that every one of the roads was already there.

Each road had been completely laid out and hard-topped. All the footpaths, streetlights and pipes have been installed with all the sites sectioned off before they are made available to a builder. The work that is being discussed would be easier with that kind of planning. If we want to reach a halfway between the extraordinary views of An Taisce and the openness of its opponents, one could develop hamlets proactively. If local authorities were told to decide where to have hamlets, organise and pipe them and not have to wait for development to begin, it would allow places for 20 houses.

I know this type of development can affect the price of land. However, it ties in with what the Taoiseach has said about local authorities buying land, preparing it for developers and allowing builders to buy it at ordinary prices. Much could be done by such a scheme and it would take pressure off single house developments. Most people in rural areas would be happy to live in hamlet developments within half a mile of where they would have built a single dwelling. I agree with the general point that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has made on single houses.

Departmental officials have assured me that our water quality is among the best in the European league table of water quality. This is very heartening to hear and was something I did not know before. We should make more out of this.

We criticise ourselves all the time. By way of information, we are now the only country in the EU going way beyond the guidelines set down in EU directive. We are going down as low to the ratio of 1:1,000 of population for sewerage treatment facilities. That goes way beyond the EU directive and no other state in the EU has decided to do this. We decided to do this in the past 12 months because of the co-operation between the group water schemes and the local authorities. With the quality new technologies we have smaller, more efficient and cost-effective systems providing good water quality. It is also relevant to the Senator's point about hamlet developments as one moves to the next stage. Ireland is way ahead of all the EU directives in that regard.

This is a positive note on which to conclude. I am heartened that we are moving towards controlling the area of water quality, having a strategy to make it work and deliver the cleanest water in Europe to our communities. If we can do that, we will have done a good day's work. I remind the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government of his confirmation and reiteration that this Bill will not lead to privatisation of the water supply.

It will not.

I can go home happy tonight. I am easily satisfied.

The day that Senator O'Toole goes home happy must be an historic one for Seanad Éireann.

I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, to the House and I commend him for introducing this important and necessary Bill. It is obviously an area that has needed attention for some time. I am glad that water services will be brought under the one Bill. I also welcome the introduction of the Bill in the Seanad. One of the more successful debates on legislation in this House was when the Environmental Protection Agency Bill was introduced here. There is the potential to have a similar debate and positive input on this Bill.

I note some of the Acts which this Bill will amend go back to 1847. I am sure the citizens of Bray will be relieved to know that sections of one of the Acts relating to Bray will be repealed. Apart from the good candlelit dinners that preceded parliamentary debates in Westminster, there was much activity and the Victorians were good at providing infrastructure. We have reason to be grateful for them in Newbridge which has its waste water and sewage system from that period as a result of the military presence in the town, and it still works. If we could come back in 100 years and see the facilities we installed were still working, we would have something of which to be proud. That is not to say that I do not want the Minister to improve the existing Newbridge system. During heavy rain, the matters of the two systems tend to intermingle and there are consequent problems for the River Liffey.

I am pleased that there is a consultation process being put in place and it should be commended. We have made enormous progress in recent years. I thank the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for providing funding in County Kildare for the Rathangan water system. There are also proposals to abstract water from the River Barrow for water supply in south County Kildare which has been a problem area for some time. There has been much progress, not just in the water supply, but in waste water management. With the exponential growth in County Kildare's population, the Robertstown sewerage treatment system has required expansion. As an angler on the River Liffey, I have a vested interest in this, but the pollution emanating from there was a source of serious worry. The work that has been done in increasing the capacity of the system has markedly improved matters. Hopefully, we will not be finding asexual fish affected by the hormones emanating from the sewerage system. The hormones do wonders for the fishes' growth but not much else.

There tended to be a territorial way of dealing with water quality in that local authorities did what they had to do for their own areas with no proper management or liaison between them. One cannot ensure water quality on that basis. Water will not flow uphill which is why it must be done on a more regional basis. A good example of this was at Castledermot, County Kildare where there were problems with nitrate pollution of well water with the supply coming from the County Carlow local authority. This sort of synergy has to be brought into play for the effective distribution of water. I commend this aspect of the Bill.

Privatisation has been raised by the Minister and several Senators. Though I am an advocate of privatisation, I am not in the case of water provision, and neither are members of the Progressive Democrats Party. It is one of the most essential pieces of national infrastructure. It is essential that it remains in public ownership and is managed for the public good. I do not see how that can be done other than through public ownership. Recent experience from the United Kingdom underlines this. When commercial greed took over in the UK water companies, some of the standards required of an urban water supply became problematic.

It was disastrous.

I noted in the explanatory and financial memoranda and during the Minister's speech that the Bill is concerned with the actual provision of water services and does not seek to directly take on board wider environmental issues surrounding water resources. It refers to matters such as pollution control, water quality, in the broadest sense, and river basin management. However, we cannot discuss this issue in the absence of an environmental debate, which Senator O'Toole demonstrated. The Bill refers to abstraction and the Minister having to take full account of river basin management. It is both implicitly and explicitly in the Bill.

I am gravely concerned about the capacity of the natural resource to meet the need. Everyone assumes that when a new housing estate is built in Dublin, people should be able to turn on the tap for fresh, clean water. However, somebody somewhere pays for this. Traditionally, one of the major sources of supply for Dublin was the Ballymore Eustace plant in County Kildare. However, that has a direct effect on the flow of the River Liffey and its flora and fauna. There is a reference in the Bill to sustainability with which I agree. However, it has got to the point where the level of abstraction from the Ballymore Eustace source is becoming unsustainable. People may think this is scaremongering, but one only has to look at examples in the United Kingdom where rivers ran dry. We have an impoundment at the head waters of the River Liffey, which means that compensatory water can be released into the river at times of drought and so on. From my experience of having grown up on the banks of the River Liffey, there is certainly less water in the river now than there was 50 years ago, the reason being that permission was granted for 50 million gallons to be abstracted per day, which I believe has increased to 72 million gallons. A proposal was put forward some time ago to increase the quantity to 124 million gallons. There is only half the flow in the river compared to the level in the past. That does not take into account compensation water, but nevertheless there is a serious environmental dimension to meeting Dublin's increasing water supply needs.

I accept what the Minister has done and I read the report on the origins of the spending in regard to quantity of water that is being lost through the system. I think it was Generale des Eaux who completed a report on the greater Dublin water management system.

The Senator is well briefed.

If some 40% of water is being lost through the system, it is apparent that many people do not give a damn. That is why I favour metering of water. I accept what the Minister said about charging, but there must be a track on where water is being lost. This relates to a point Senator O'Toole made about a local businessman. I had a similar experience with a local businessman who could not understand the quantity of water that was being lost, but it was due to it being siphoned off. We need to know where the abuses lie in the system. I am pleased the Bill will give people power to inspect pipes and to check that systems are being properly managed. The reason I am in favour of metering is that it will enable us to find where the problems lie.

It was suggested that most of the water is lost in the Dublin network before it reaches the domestic pipe or tap. Nevertheless, it would help to know the answers to——

Such a provision would not give us the full answer in that regard.

I accept that. We would like to know the answers to these questions.

We have succeeded in reducing the loss from 43% to 29% which represents a major improvement, although a vast amount of water loss is still unaccounted for. The indications are that such loss is not all due to rusty or old pipes.

If we regard water as being free — I made the point that it is not free because somebody somewhere pays for it, as does society — to the user, why would people not leave their taps on overnight on a night like tonight when we expect freezing temperatures to make sure that the pipes will not freeze? It is wrong to do so because water is a precious resource which must be protected.

During the by-election in Dublin in which Deputy Joe Higgins was elected, we canvassed people who lived in wonderful million pound houses in Lucan and other such areas. Those houses probably have three bathrooms and there were two cars in the driveways, yet the people in those houses complained about paying water charges. The solution, which is probably further down the road, is that everybody should be entitled to a minimum level of water free of charge. However, if one is living in a house with four bathrooms where there is a meter, one should be liable to pay for water used above such a minimum level because too much water, which is a scarce resource, is being lost in the system.

With regard to the EU drinking water directive, I support what Senator Kitt said about group schemes. The provision of such schemes was the first example of public private partnerships or perhaps public community partnerships. People in cities do not understand the degree to which such schemes transformed life in rural Ireland. Rather than having to fill a bath, as was done in front of the fire in the days when there was candlelight, such schemes ensured people had running water.

There seems to be a suggestion that people on group water schemes are in some way responsible for the presence of e-coli, nitrates or phosphates in the water system, but those people did not put them there — they are not the polluters. However, they are being asked to pick up the cost. It is right that the local water authority should be able to intervene in the event of a crisis where matters need to be sorted out or where management is defective over an extended period, and the Bill allows for that.

The State is providing 100% capital funding.

That is welcome and that is the way it should be. Many people made significant efforts and incurred a good deal of personal expense in areas where they did not have much money to ensure that such infrastructure was put in place. The National Federation of Group Water Schemes deserves a great deal of praise for that.

Section 95 refers to acquiring a waste waterworks and the need for two thirds of the people who own that waterworks to agree to it being taken in charge. One of the difficulties about that, and I know about this in practice, is that frequently in the case of the older systems the original trustees may no longer be there. There is a similar difficulty in the case of parish halls where people are trying to take them over to renovate them.

A man in Kilcullen, Paddy Nugent, was one of the first people to buy land on behalf of the local community to erect affordable houses that could be bought. He did that on his own initiative by running a non-stop draw throughout the county for numerous years. The money collected went towards that scheme. That is a model for what could be done. One of the by-products of that scheme is a wastewater treatment system, which needs to be taken in charge by the county council. That is a straightforward case, but there can be cases where the trustees of the scheme are departed and this can create a difficulty.

It is a difficult area.

I welcome an environmental aspect in the latter part of the Bill. It relates to the increase in penalties under the Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts of 1977 and 1990 and there is an increase in penalties under the Fisheries Acts. The penalty is €3,000 on summary conviction and up to €15 million on indictment. That is the way it should be because some people have a cavalier disregard for waterways, rivers and the sources of water which we need to use.

I am confused about a provision in section 72 which deals with metering. Section 72(1)(b) states that “subject to complying with the provisions of other enactments in relation to charging for water services, charge a rent or otherwise recover from a user the costs incurred by it in respect of every meter”, etc. I assume that is the reference the Minister gave when he spoke about the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1997, but I am unclear about it.

The Bill will make no changes on the domestic side. It leaves the existing provisions in place. I clarify that point in case it was picked up incorrectly.

I am very much of the view of Senator O'Toole on the matter of washing powders. One part per billion of phosphates in water can lead algae bloom in a lake.

There are free trade and competitive issues involved.

I understand that.

I agree with what the Senator said.

I accept what the Minister said about the quality of our water supply. Apart from the water coming through the tap, one needs only to look at the water flowing down the River Liffey to note the improvement that has taken place in that regard in the middle of Dublin. That have been major improvements, and that is critical. Phosphates are by far one of the most serious pollutants. There are insidious pollutants, of which we do not see a great deal. If something could be done regarding detergents it would be a good day's work.

I commend the legislation, which is beneficial and timely.

I join previous speakers in welcoming the Minister and his officials. There are salient points in the Bill and some aspects of it are good. As a society, we probably have adopted the same attitude to our treatment of water as we have to the treatment of waste, namely, that it is not something that needs to be given priority. We have become careless about it. The majority of the regulations and laws governing the treatment of water derive from EU directives. We must wake up to reality and face the problems that exist, while being mindful of the protection of the health and welfare of people who consume what is, as Senator Dardis pointed out, one of our most valuable natural resources and being cognisant of the implications for the environment of our treatment of it.

I accept what the Minister says on metering. If what he says is the case, then it is probably no harm to have this phrased in terms of water being consumed or wasted, as the case may be. Keeping a tracking system is necessarily a good thing but it also gives credence to the belief that at some stage charges for water will be introduced on the basis of meters being installed. That should not be the case and the public should not be asked to bear the burden of costs due to another decision made by the Minister.

There have been difficulties recently obtaining money to pay huge benchmarking awards for those working in this sector and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was not as lucky as other Ministers. The Minister for Finance picked up the tab for benchmarking in most other Departments but not for Deputy Cullen's Department, which puts a huge financial burden on local authorities. Those authorities are already strapped for cash and naturally enough they are looking for other ways of raising revenue, with the ordinary Joe Soap picking up the cost.

Funding has been pulled back from the local government fund, although there was a temporary respite before Christmas. I cannot think of the amount given, and I am not being flippant, but it was probably a politically strategic thing to do this side of the local and European elections. Generally, however, there is a shortfall of revenue, the Department of Finance has refused to fund benchmarking for this Department and local authorities are cash strapped. When one examines this area one could easily arrive at the opinion that charges for water will be reintroduced based on the installation of meters.

I have already mentioned the various charges associated with the Department, such as the recent rate of increase in development charges. Most local authorities have adopted those increases although many, like my local authority in Cork, rejected them initially and are now looking at alternative methods of accepting a compromise. Again, this leads to stealth taxes and while the amounts involved may be small, when people make up their budgets to build a house they find the planning application has become more expensive. That is another undue burden, particularly on young people who are trying to build houses. That group has already suffered the abolition of the first-time buyer's grant, which is another indication of how serious the fiscal situation is in Ireland and how the Minister is trying to raise funds for his Department, which he is entitled to do.

I oppose any charges for water but making these provisions in the Bill paves the way for their introduction in the future. I am cognisant, as is everyone else, that the local and European elections are being held in June and I would not expect the Minister to say anything other than charges will not be introduced this side of June. Who knows what will happen when those elections have taken place?

Other decisions by various Ministers indicate, as if we did not already know, that the elections are only four months away. The decision last year by Cork County Council to stop disabled person's grants and essential repairs grants was temporarily revoked recently because the council got an allocation at the start of the year from the Department. Anyone viewing that decision would conclude that it is a vote buying exercise like those in the period before the 2002 election, when money was being thrown around like confetti and people were lulled into a false sense of security. We all know what happened after those votes were counted. The votes will be counted quicker this June with electronic voting and the reality of the situation will also hit home sooner. A cynical political approach has been taken to announcements in recent weeks which is not consistent with the way in which decisions have been made in the last two years. That is particularly true for local authorities.

The Taoiseach was in Sligo recently for a meeting of his parliamentary party and at that meeting the issue of rural planning and once-off rural houses was raised. What is the Minister's view on this matter? Is there any tension on the Government's part or is it Government policy to open up the whole planning process? What are the implications for the sector we are dealing with today and the implications for rural sustainability and development generally? Is there a national policy in place on water services? What does the Minister see as the result of opening up this area of the planning process? I am interested in his views on these matters.

Many local authorities have privatised their waste collection systems, which has led to a shortfall in revenue. If one introduces private collectors the council coffers will invariably suffer as a result. If county managers are forced to introduce adjustments or cutbacks in budgets, whatever one wants to call them, what areas will they look at next? The most obvious area is rent from local authority houses and another is the charge on water usage, which is not good.

Section 36 deals with water services authorities making water service strategic plans for their areas. It provides that the making of such plans shall be an executive function. As Senator Dardis pointed out, we had very good debates on previous Bills introduced by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Bill which ended the dual mandate was quite controversial, although one would think now that it had never passed into law, as was the Protection of the Environment Bill. In the latter the power to levy charges for refuse collections was taken from elected members of local government and passed to managers by virtue of the executive function. I am one of many who believe that managers and assistant managers have enough power as it is and that the role of members of local government is being further denigrated as a result of various Bills. If local government is to mean anything, then surely the role of the councillor should be enhanced. We seek clarity from the Minister on this section.

I look forward to the debate on later Stages of the Bill and I will take the Minister up on his comments about amendments to improve the text of the legislation. We hope to table amendments to improve the legislation.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Pat The Cope Gallagher, to the House. It is good to see him again as he always pays close attention to what goes on here. I also thank the Minister, Deputy Cullen, for his contribution, which gave a clear indication of where we are going with the Bill.

I do not have much experience of the rural aspect of this issue, but in Dublin and other major urban areas the provision of water on tap is taken for granted. Nobody gives any thought to where the water comes from, how it gets there or what is in it. The Bill is replacing a raft of legislation and regulations which date not only from the last century, but from the previous one. It is interesting to read the Bills cited in the Schedule to the Bill, such as the Dublin Corporation Waterworks Acts 1861, 1874 and 1878. That is the legislation we are working on. The Waterworks Clauses 1847 and 1863 and the Water Supplies Act 1942, which dealt with the abstraction of water from a supply source, also jumped out at me. We go right through to the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and regulations from Europe. EU directives cover a wide range of areas, from the quality of water for human consumption to the issue of waste management and the use of sludge in agriculture. The Bill deals comprehensively with these directives.

After many years of neglect in this area, investment in water services has grown enormously. The unprecedented growth in the economy has resulted in a corresponding growth in consumption. Investment in the Water Services Investment Programme 2000-2006 will increase from €1.24 billion in the previous programme to a planned expenditure of €4.4 billion in the coming years.

The programme consists of three main elements — the provision of major public water and sewage schemes, an upgrading of rural and group schemes and the provision of assistance to local authorities to assist them to meet the requirements of all EU directives, including the waste water treatment and drinking water directives. The previous speaker referred to the role of local authorities in this regard. When it suits, a distinction is made between the input of officials and that of councillors who are elected to represent the people and have an input into the councils' operations and policies.

I am a member of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Environment and Local Government. The scrutiny of EU legislation is an important aspect of our work and these detailed documents require close attention.

It is interesting to examine where the money comes from for investment in this area. In the previous programme which covered the period 1994 to 1999, some €712 million was provided by the Cohesion Fund; another €77 million came from the European Regional Development Fund and a further €425 million came from the Exchequer. The position is considerably different this time around. A projected €285 million of the planned €4.4 billion will come from the Cohesion Fund and €71 million from Structural Funds. This is a huge reduction in EU-sourced funding and the shortfall must be taken up by the Exchequer. A number of speakers referred to the improvements that have taken place in recent years. In 1997, Exchequer funding was €206.637 million. By 2002, this had risen to €492.55 million.

A distinction must be drawn between domestic and non-domestic or commercial users. I speak from a Dublin perspective. The polluter pays principle must apply. Under the legislation, local authorities will have wider powers to monitor, inspect and charge non-domestic users, as well as having the power to fine abusers of the system. An example was given where abuse of the system resulted in an individual having to subsidise the supply to others. This is a serious problem in many of the industrial estates in Dublin and it needs to be tackled urgently.

A comprehensive programme of training and technical assistance will be available as well as support services for rural water schemes and the development of IT systems. Technology was also referred to earlier. There has been an impetus towards having more serviced land banks around the country. It is essential that we use whatever technology is available to enhance and improve services nationwide.

Water conservation, an issue in which we all have a role, is also addressed in the Bill. A comprehensive national water survey in 1996 found that up to 47% of water was unaccounted for, in the sense of its being lost to the system. A great deal of investment has been made in repairing systems and conserving existing supplies around the country.

The Minister, Deputy Cullen, referred in particular to Dublin. Increased supply and a comprehensive leakage control campaign have counteracted the shortages that were heretofore a regular feature of life. It was a standing joke in Dublin that in a country with so much rain, the officials in the then Dublin Corporation invariably signalled water conservation measures due to drought conditions between May and September. The solution proved to be to reduce wastage in the system. Wastage in Dublin has been reduced from 47% to 29%. The reduction in Donegal has been from 59% from 39%. In Kilkenny, wastage has been reduced from 45% to 29%. The Bill underpins the powers to take action against consumers, especially non-domestic consumers, and to enforce the conservation of water, which is in everybody's interest.

I recently visited the new water treatment plant in Ringsend, which is a wonderful project. While it was very expensive, it will definitely pay dividends. It is an investment on which we are certain to get a return. This project increased the capacity for treatment of waste water to a population equivalent to 1.7 million making it the largest plant in Europe. It treats all waste water, both domestic and commercial, for the entire Dublin region. This will improve the water quality in the bay which may result in Dublin becoming the only EU capital with a blue flag. This state-of-the-art plant is well worth a visit.

I visited a number of waste treatment plants in Switzerland last year. This is a country with a large chemical industry which treats all its water. As Senator McCarthy pointed out, a huge cost is incurred by citizens as it is an expensive process. The manner in which Dublin City Council has tackled this issue is a prime example of how it can be done efficiently and cost effectively and the council is to be commended on this.

The quality of drinking water is also referred to in the Bill. The 2001 Environmental Protection Agency report concluded that the overall quality of drinking water had a compliance rate of 94%. Both capacity and supply have increased since then. We cannot become complacent on this important matter. A link is evident between the pressure on demand and the quality of water. The Bill puts in place a comprehensive framework to deal with unaccounted for water caused by leakage. There has been a notable increase in treatment and storage capacity around the country between 1997 and 2002.

I particularly welcome the Minister of State's comments on privatisation and charges. He has made it clear that this Bill does not make any attempt to address either of those possibilities. Had he listened to the Minister of State, Senator McCarthy would have realised the intention is to continue improving the service to the population at large. I commend the Minister of State and his officials on the production of the Bill.

I praise the Department for its wisdom in applying the plastic bag tax. I was recently in Northern Ireland and other countries and the highly visible presence of discarded plastic bags is one of the first things I noticed. Whoever came up with the idea of this tax deserves to be congratulated as it has added greatly to the appearance of our country.

I support this Bill. However, given the current Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I am concerned about its implementation from a political perspective. Senator McCarthy referred to the legislation on the dual mandate. It seems the Houses will not sit for longer hours than has been the case heretofore. It is ironic that the Taoiseach can be both Taoiseach and president of the EU for the next six months and have a dual mandate in that respect, while I, as a humble Senator, cannot have a dual mandate to attend county council meetings.

Maybe the Senator will be able to do it some day.

I am sure other Members, including Senator Brennan who has strong views on this matter, agree with me.

The Water Services Bill updates old and inadequate legislation and must be welcomed. I have grave concerns about the Minister's ideas on one-off housing in rural areas. This will have severe implications for water supplies. County Carlow has a good planning policy that it is fair and consistent. Introducing a standardised policy countrywide could make it more difficult to obtain planning permission in counties such as Carlow. I holiday in County Kerry and I am not impressed with the local authority members there who seem to sign section 4 motions at every opportunity to sanction one-off housing. Another Senator said that most people would be quite happy to live in hamlets in rural areas. I agree and feel that the onus should be on local authorities to provide services to such hamlets. If it is not planned properly, the notion that one-off houses can be built everywhere is a recipe for disaster.

Schedule 2 of the Bill deals with pre-treatment objectives. Will the Minister of State clarify the Government's plans regarding the fluoridation of water? This was raised at a recent committee meeting and the jury is undecided on whether fluoridation of water is good or bad. It is felt in some quarters that it is a form of mass medication. Different systems are in place in other countries. For example, some countries add fluoride to salt; the beauty of this is that one can control the consumption of fluoride. The disadvantage of having fluoride in water is that one cannot control how much fluoride one consumes.

Section 32 refers to detailed performance standards to be prescribed in due course by local authorities. While this is admirable, how is it to be quantified? We all know that the public is hard to please. How can an adequate performance standard be quantified? There is a variance between water pressures in different parts of the country and this is an issue in rural areas. How can local authorities guarantee a minimum standard of water pressure? Setting such a standard could be costly for local authorities to meet. How will dealing with customer complaints be quantified?

Section 32 (3)(r) refers to the “provision of water supplies for fire-fighting or other public health and safety purposes including the provision of notices to assist in the location of fire hydrants”. While this is fair in an urban area, I wonder how it can be applied in a rural setting. I have been told that this will not be possible in a rural area.

Section 36 smacks of the premise behind the waste management strategy and we see again the horrible phrase "executive function". Local elections will be held in June and one wonders why we are bothering to hold them as there is increasingly less work for councillors to do and fewer decisions to make. The county manager can take the decision on waste management and under this Bill water services will remain an executive function. What is the role for councillors, or the acclaimed SPCs, in this area?

Section 38 refers to public consultation. However, it appears to only apply after a decision is made. I stand corrected if I am reading this incorrectly. My understanding is that the management of a local authority will make a decision, inform the councillors and SPCs and it will then be put to public consultation in a token manner. This is inherently wrong. This is a backward step if we are serious about trying to make people more involved in local authority affairs.

Section 44 enables a water services authority, on request, to repair privately owned service connections that pass under private land not belonging to the owner of the premises being serviced by the connection. Members of my local authority who are familiar with this area feel the authority should have an automatic right to access land where they know there is a water leakage or other difficulty. Seeking legal permission to access land can be time consuming for the authority and during this time thousands of gallons of water may be wasted. The Bill should make provision to allow local authorities to access in land in certain cases. While I recognise there may be a difficulty in this, the local authority should be given extreme powers to access land in emergencies.

Section 50 enables a water services authority to enter into an agreement with any person to provide water services infrastructure, with a view to that person subsequently transferring ownership of it to the water services authority. Where do development levies fit in with this section? If a person receives planning permission and development levies are applied for water, can this charge be offset when the local authority takes the services under its control? While I welcome this good Bill, the points I raised need to be clarified.

I join in welcoming Deputy Noel Ahern, Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I congratulate the Minister on yesterday's announcement of record non-national roads grants. The finger cannot be pointed at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for failing to keep its promises.

In welcoming the Bill, it should be noted that legislation has served the country well down through the years, for example in assisting local authorities to work with communities to set up group water schemes. The provision of water services is a key responsibility for local authorities. Water services are the only utility provided directly by local authorities. The days are long gone when we could afford to be carefree about the source for the supply of drinking water and not worry about the effects of dumping our waste water in rivers, lakes and seas. We are investing more than €4 billion in water services up to 2006, which will be rapidly transformed by high cost state-of-the-art technology particularly in waste water treatment. A large part of the investment is necessary to ensure compliance with the EU urban water waste treatment directive. The Government is going further in providing treatment plants for towns with populations of 1,000 people and lower. I compliment the local authorities on adopting county development plans and setting up investment programmes for the moneys generated from the development levies. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will also make separate funding available for facilities in smaller towns and villages, which they previously could not have expected to have for 20 years. The Department's pilot conservation grants scheme has ensured greater operational efficiency with the loss of water from leakages being halved. It is good to see local authorities using schemes to such effect.

On the question of way-leaves, local authorities could serve a 14 day notice in order to repair water pipes, but it would now appear that way-leaves may come under the planning legislation. Will this have an effect on local authorities carrying out repair works? Will the practice of waste water going into the sewerage system be tackled under the provisions of this Bill? A licence will be required to discharge into a sewage scheme but that was a problem for local authorities in the past

I pay tribute to those who have worked with local authorities to establish group water schemes. The strategic policy committees have worked with local authorities. This legislation represents a common sense approach, where local authorities through the strategic policy committees and the group water schemes can tackle the identified problems. I have no doubt that with the available funding the Minister will achieve his goal in the five year period and beyond.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern. This is an important Bill, but I wish to qualify my remarks by saying that previous departmental funding for upgrading private group water schemes was very welcome. Prior to the provision of such funding some older group schemes were not working effectively due to leaks and so on and this funding ensured people were provided with quality water.

Some aspects of the Bill, to which other Senators also referred, worry me. Are we complicating the process? Local authorities have done an excellent job in providing and improving water services in most counties. We are creating a new service authority within the local authority structure. Why is it necessary to create a new structure when the water and sanitary services sections of local authorities work so well? This gives rise to suspicion and the Minister must clarify the reason for it. There are vague side-swipes at local authorities as is the pattern of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government's dealings with local authorities and local authority members. The Minister interferes and I believe this is a further interference. Is the Minister suspicious of the quality of water being delivered? I ask the Minister of State to bring to the Minister's attention that some local authorities are guilty of supplying very poor quality water. The case I know best is the water supply from Lough Derg on the River Shannon. Lough Derg supplies many adjacent towns and is one of the most highly polluted lakes in Ireland. There are two State agencies involved, the local authorities and Bord na Móna. Bord na Móna has changed its practices and eliminated most of the pollutants but the local authorities in counties Westmeath and Longford have not. At Portumna, the lake is at its worst. Individuals and industry are blamed when the State has to take responsibility for the source of greatest pollution in the past.

In spite of numerous requests Kinvara, a town on the County Galway coast, is allowed to discharge raw sewage directly into Galway Bay, where there are valuable oyster beds. Studies by the marine section of NUI Galway have clearly indicated the reckless danger involved in allowing this to continue. I am flagging this as highly dangerous. We are striving for blue flag status for bathing areas throughout the country. Tracht Beach, beside Kinvara, has been awarded a blue flag only because natural currents take the polluted water away from the beach. We must move quickly on such pollution. Some coastal towns, including Kinvara, which is a classic example, do not currently have proper sewerage systems. It is a disgrace to discharge untreated sewage into Galway Bay and it cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.

Mudslides have occurred recently in the hills above Derrybrien and, unfortunately, they entered a local river that feeds into Lough Cutra, which provides the water supply for Gort. At the time the mudslides occurred, the situation was critical but the threat of pollution re-emerges each time there is a shower of rain because of the discharge and run-off into the river. The quality of drinking water in Gort during that time was so dangerous that the local authority had to bore for an emergency supply of water. That situation cannot be allowed to continue. While the immediate danger has subsided, many funding requests have been made to public representatives both locally and nationally, and to the Minister, to allow the local authority to improve the current precarious position. The Minister of State should bring this matter to the notice of his officials so that urgent funding can be provided to Galway County Council to carry out the necessary works to guarantee a high quality water supply for Gort.

If the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was proactive in consulting bodies, such as the National Roads Authority, it could provide mains piping adjacent to main routes, at low cost, from one urban area to another. If the work is done later on, however, the local authorities will have to lay piping through thoroughfares and across developed sites on rezoned land. If we are serious about forward planning for the development of water services, an ideal structure is presenting itself in many places whereby main water supplies can be provided cheaply in consultation with the NRA.

If one wants to lay pipes along a main thoroughfare from one town or village to another, the requirements of the NRA with regard to the restoration of hard shoulders along such roads involve prohibitive expense because costs have rocketed. A request has been made to the Minister of State's Department concerning the Loughrea bypass, which is currently being constructed after a long delay. In order to service the newly rezoned land along the outer limits of Loughrea, an ideal opportunity exists for the supply of mains water and the treatment of waste water, given the new sewerage works for Loughrea, which can be installed at low cost to provide for future development. Proactive planning is required so that developers can have ready access to such facilities for industrial, commercial and residential development. That is preferable to ripping up streets in order to provide new water supplies, as is the case in many parts of the country.

The signals emanating from the legislation and the Minister's speech are confusing and contradictory. In his speech the Minister stated, "The primary purpose of the Bill is to set down a comprehensive modern legislative code governing functions, standards, obligations and practice concerning the planning, management and delivery of water supply and waste water collection and treatment services".

However, the Bill's explanatory memorandum states that "The Bill concerns itself only with the actual provision of water services". Will the Minister explain that serious contradiction in his intentions? It is understandable that, due to the Minister's record concerning local authorities their members, many people could be suspicious about what his next move will be after the elections in June.

This is an important Bill, which reflects the work of an energetic and reforming Minister who is anxious to get things done. Senator Ulick Burke is a little paranoid about the Minister's attitude to local authorities. Section 2(1)(i) states “‘water services authority’ means a County Council or a City Council as defined in the Act of 2001.” So it is not creating some other type of authority.

For the time being.

The fact that the preparation of these plans will be an executive function does not mean it will not be done, as happens in most places, in close consultation with elected representatives.

I share in the tributes that have been paid to the prowess of Victorian engineers who pioneered the provision of water and sewage treatment. All such facilities need to be renewed. Tributes are also due to the engineers working during the early years of independence, who connected water supplies to so many households around the country. A fine job was done in that era, which long pre-dated the Celtic tiger.

This is one of the least politically glamorous areas of Government activity. One rarely sees Senators or Deputies rushing to their local radio stations following some announcement about investment in water or sewerage treatment. Nonetheless, such matters are extremely important to the economic and social development of the country. The resources provided for these services have tapered off somewhat since 2002, prior to which there had been a very large increase. Reference has been made to various projects that have been undertaken, including, for example, the marvellous work in Dublin Bay. I recall discussing that with the former Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey, in the early 1990s. He took great interest in it but it took ten or 12 years to reach fruition because many such projects are long-term.

I fully accept the point made by Senator Ulick Burke about Lough Derg and Galway Bay. Rome was not built in a day, of course, but these matters have to be attended to. We are beginning to turn the corner as regards the quality of our water resources. It is important to ensure there is no waste of resources. I remember that ten or 20 years ago during dry periods in Dublin we would hear constant calls to ration our water or not to undertake certain activities. This is rare in recent times, which suggests that the efficiency of water supply has improved. It could also mean that we are getting a more even supply of water from the heavens.

There is an emphasis on standards in the Bill which is important. People in a country such as ours have the impression that water is free. The provision of water certainly is not free. It is provided out of general taxation and I have no problem with that, but the Bill is right to attach penalties, if necessary, to gratuitous waste of water. Reference was made to the River Liffey. I visited the Middle East recently where the River Jordan, which one would imagine from Bible study days is a large river, was only a trickle because all the water is diverted from it. We are fortunate to have an ample and abundant supply of water.

Flooding of country roads as a result of farmers not keeping drains as well as was the case in the past is a problem. Where road flooding results from inadequate drainage or maintenance of drains, I hope the provisions of the Bill will require landowners to address the situation.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has dismissed out of hand the notion of privatisation of water services. It is a myth that matters are more efficiently done in the private sector. This is not necessarily so. If people must scramble around for profits for shareholders, this may lead to greater inefficiency. We saw some fiascos in this area in Britain a few years ago where there was inadequate investment. We see a similar situation in the railways there also where, because shareholders must be kept happy, the investment is inadequate.

Water is such an essential requirement that if it fails the Government will be held responsible. Therefore, it cannot be disposed of to private authorities. The Government will always have to ensure water is properly supplied. I welcome the Bill and the progress it represents. It is important that the Government continues to apply the necessary resources to deal with its large backlog in the provision of better water and waste treatment services. Some examples of this need have been raised in this debate.

We have one other speaker. Therefore, the Minister may require some speaking time beyond 6 p.m. for his reply. I propose an amendment to the Order of Business to allow that extra time.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I welcome this Bill in so far as it consolidates previous legislation in this area. The consolidation of the 17 previous Acts will make the legislation easier for people to use.

We need to discuss and get answers to certain issues before we pass the Bill. The Minister's speech stated that section 70 provides that additional obligations will be placed on occupiers and owners to maintain septic tanks, referred to as treatment systems, in such condition as is necessary to avoid nuisance or risk to human health or the environment. Many people throughout the country who have bought second hand houses have septic tanks which do not function properly. The Minister should make a grant available to people in such circumstances to upgrade their septic tanks and make them more efficient. He should do this in the interest of the environment. This assistance would be very welcome.

The Minister stated that he intends that water services authorities will use their licensing powers in a proactive manner to support and nurture the development of best practice throughout the group water services scheme sector. What is best practice? Some time ago during an Adjournment debate on an issue raised by me the Minister also spoke about best practice. What is best practice with regard to water services?

The Minister and the Government have decided to place all water services on a design-build-operate or public private partnership basis. Is that best practice? Do we know that a move away from the conventional system is the best way to go? The Minister has not explained best practice to us although he alludes to it and infers it is the way of design-build-operate schemes or public private partnerships.

Senator Brady mentioned the new system at Ringsend which I welcome. I would like the Minister of State in his summing up, or the Minister on Committee Stage, to elaborate on the Ringsend operation. How is it working, how is it financed and how will it be financed over the next 20 years? Part of it operates under a design-build-operate scheme. I understand that this scheme and the polluter pays system operate on the basis that the business community will pay two charges. It will pay both the capital and the running charge. If this is the case, there are huge consequences for business communities throughout the country. This affects not only business communities, but also farmers who operate from group water schemes.

The Government has mentioned best practice but there is only one practice. The Government has designed the practice in such a way that the only way for a group water scheme to go ahead is under a design-build-operate scheme. It offers 110% of a grant for a design-build-operate scheme, but only 80% for a conventional system. No group or trustees of a group will go down the road of a partly funded scheme where they must raise 20% of the cost from local contributions when they can get 110% under a design-build-operate scheme.

These schemes are designed to make money for the private contractor or operator and this practice will remove any influence or say a local authority member might have in the matter. Once a group enters a contract for 20 or 25 years with a design-build-operate entity the local authority members will have no say. The local authority's only involvement in the scheme will be the bill it receives from the operator of the scheme at the end of the financial year. The county manager will take that bill and, based on the non-domestic element of it, spread the charge among the business and farming community who will have to pay the piper. Annual inflation will also be a built-in element of the bills over the length of the contract.

I hope that before Committee Stage the Minister will be able to explain to us how the Ringsend scheme is working. I do not know of any other scheme which is operating efficiently under the design-build-operate public private partnership and the polluter pays system. I would like to have an answer before this Bill is passed as the legislation will have ferocious consequences for businesses and factories, particularly pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities which use a great deal of water. Many factories are under pressure from countries in Europe and elsewhere. If we impose hefty penalties on them for water and sewerage schemes, we will drive more and more employers out of Ireland.

I would like the Minister of State to explain in his summing up how best practice will work. The Government has taken great pains and performed great publicity stunts to communicate that it is spending €5.9 billion on the remainder of the national development plan for water and sewerage services. The Government says the majority of schemes will be design-build-operate public private partnerships. If one asks the Minister what will be the consequences for businesses, farmers and the public, one receives no reply. Requests fall on a deaf ear. I would like some answers. The Ringsend plant appears to be what most people have been talking about. As it is up and running, surely we should know what are its consequences. One must bear in mind, of course, that Dublin City Council probably has the most buoyant rate base in the country. It must have a huge advantage from a rates point of view. I am sure the Minister of State will elaborate on this.

I welcome the consolidation of the previous Acts. However, the Bill paves the way for the privatisation of water and sewerage services. There will be very few people who have the experience and expertise to construct design-build-operate schemes under public private partnerships. There will be one, two or three contractors who will have among them a monopoly on schemes, and this is the sense in which there will be privatisation in water and sewerage services. I am not in favour of design, build and operate schemes. While the design and build could be private, it would be a regressive step to take the operation of schemes from local authorities. I ask the Minister to consider removing the operational end from the private sector. There is a great deal of expertise in local authorities. Each local authority should constitute the expert group in each water service area. Not only can local authorities do the job, but through local authority members, the public would be able to have their say. If we go down the other route, they will have no say. I welcome the Bill.

I propose an amendment to the Order of Business that business be interrupted not later than 6.15 p.m.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank Senators for their welcome contributions to this Second Stage debate. As the Minister, Deputy Cullen, said, this is a landmark Bill. It represents another milestone in the ongoing roll out of the Government's regulatory reform agenda. The Minister pointed out that some of the legislation in this area dates back to 1847 and famine times. The need to update it is obvious. For the first time in over a century, this legislation brings together all relevant provisions relating to the management and delivery of water services in one, updated Bill. A detailed, modern body of legislation on water resources protection and environmental protection generally is already in place to facilitate the sustainable management of the State's water resources. The Bill before the House represents another link in the chain. It fits neatly into the equation and will complement the other codes in force by providing for the efficient and effective management of resources in future.

The Water Services Bill 2003 is, in essence, a utilities Bill. As with gas or electricity, its focus is on the effective management of the resource and efficient delivery of services. On one hand, the legislation represents a technical exercise through which to tidy up and modernise the existing code of water services legislation to make it more accessible and consistent while on the other, it introduces a much needed integrated management framework for the planning, development and supervision of water services.

A number of points were raised by Senators, some of whom suspect that the Bill is an attempt to introduce charges. I can only stress that the legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with the reintroduction of charges for domestic users. As before, businesses will bear the cost of providing the water they use, which is only right and proper. Another Senator mentioned metering. Metering has two purposes — it is a fair way to charge the commercial user and it is necessary to safeguard resources and trace leaks. We all agree that better management of this scarce resource is essential. There is no provision in the Bill to meter households with a view to charging them. That is not what we are about. If there are meters in the system, they are there to protect and safeguard water resources. I was a member of Dublin City Council a number of years ago and I am aware that a huge amount of money has been spent to prevent the wasting of water. I am sure the same is true around the country, particularly in old, urban areas where the infrastructure and the pipe system may be 100 to 200 years old. There is no point producing water at enormous expense if half of it is being wasted and failing to turn up in taps.

Senator Dardis mentioned wider environmental concerns. He felt there was a need to integrate water services into wider environmental structures. This Bill is rightly about water services and it contributes to tackling wider environmental problems. Through our implementation of the EU framework directive on water, we are dealing with wider water resource issues. I envisage that at a later stage we may need to carry out a similar consolidation and modernisation exercise on water resources legislation.

Fluoridation was also mentioned. I am aware of the concerns people have about this matter, which has been an issue for many years. Fluoridation is fundamentally the responsibility of the Minister for Health and Children and it is not addressed in the Water Services Bill at all. It was a raging issue in Dublin approximately 30 years ago when fluoride was introduced into the water supply. An expert group reported to the Minister some months ago and recommended its continued use. The argument continues with experts on both sides. I will not pretend to be an expert, but there is no doubt that where there is no fluoridation of water, people's teeth are in an extremely poor state.

The state of dental health is extremely bad. Fluoride in the water supply is of significant benefit to the dental health of the country. A Senator asked whether a private operator providing water services infrastructure under the development levies would be entitled to a refund or compensation if the service was taken under the control of the local authority. The Bill does not provide for that situation. It may depend on the circumstances of a case. I presume it would be a matter for agreement between the parties at a local level. The Bill is neutral on this matter.

Privatisation of water services is not being considered. Any involvement by the private sector other than in the provision of group water services schemes will be as appointed agents of a local authority or water services authority through a public private partnership arrangement. Public private partnerships will operate either on the basis of a contract between the water services authority and a private operator for the provision of service or as a joint water services authority-private sector arrangement providing the service. In either case, the water services authority, which probably will be the local authority, will retain overall responsibility for conformity with statutory requirements which it will exercise through the relevant contracts or legal agreements. I suggest that such concerns are not well founded.

On the question of design-build-operate being best practice, it is regarded as the best method of operation. It produces more cost effective solutions. The plants built under this system, such as Ringsend, have been built within budget and on schedule. Best practice in any planned operation is where it can be delivered in accordance with the tender and on time. There have been too many instances where infrastructure was provided but the cost estimates and time schedule went out the window.

Non-domestic users will pay only those costs which result from their use of water services. There will be a periodic contract so that if the local authority is not satisfied with the contract, it can be cancelled. The local authority or the water services authority will negotiate the contract and if a party does not perform and does not provide a good competitive service, it will not be renewed. The development of design-build-operate projects will create competition among the operators. We are not writing a blank cheque by using these DBO schemes. They will be operated to a specification and a close eye will be maintained on the costs.

A question was asked about the Government's approach to problems with water quality. In November 2002, the European Court of Justice held that Ireland failed to fully implement the EU directive concerning the quality of water intended for human consumption. We are responding to this judgment by continuing and intensifying numerous measures to strengthen the delivery, management and supervision of water services. Measures taken to tackle and resolve deficiencies in the water supply include significant and record investment under the national development plan, the water services investment programme and the rural water programme. There will be utilisation of the Environmental Protection Agency reports to target investment; preparation of rural water strategic plans for all counties and a national source monitoring programme for the approximately 750 group schemes using a private source and serving 50 persons or more. There will be 100% grants for treatment and disinfection equipment for group schemes. New treatment technologies will be piloted and DBO contracts will be issued for the group schemes sector.

Senator McCarthy asked whether water services strategic planning could become an executive function. They are in effect management and operational plans rather than policy plans per se. Their primary role is to outline the situation in each water services authority functional area regarding the demand for water services and the proposed level of response to that demand. The water services strategic planning process will be based on a partnership between the Department and each water services authority to ensure that national and local water services agendas are fully synchronised. The Minister will have the final say in what goes into a plan.

Some Senators expressed their ongoing concerns that this legislation will take powers from local authorities and councillors. That is not the case. I have been a member of a local authority for many years and I know councillors are protective of their own patch. I fully support the work of councillors. There is nothing in this Bill which can be interpreted as taking power away, rather it is combining legislative measures and updating what needs to be updated.

Many of the provisions of the Bill are technical in nature. It is essential that the Bill is adequately proofed by the practitioners who will be charged with its implementation. Arising from this process and when the legislation returns to the House on Committee Stage, the Minister will present some proposals and technical amendments to the Bill. The significant added value the House can bring to the Bill is acknowledged and welcomed. Many of us have served at local authority level and know the good work that has been done there over the years. The Minister will be happy to consider any amendments which Senators may wish to bring forward on Committee Stage. He wishes to approach future debates in a spirit of openness and accepts that discussions with local authorities may highlight a need for amendments. If there are any other ideas or suggestions, he will openly welcome them.

I thank the House for its consideration of the matter.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday,3 February 2004.

When is it proposed to sit again?

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.15 p.m. until10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 28 January 2004.
Barr
Roinn