SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 4 Dec 2007

Vote 25 - Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Supplementary).

Chairman

On behalf of the select committee I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Killeen, and his officials. This is his first meeting with the committee in this new Dáil.

We are meeting today to consider the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Vote 25. A briefing note providing details of the Supplementary Estimate has been circulated to members. I propose to commence with an opening statement by the Minister of State. This will be followed by an opening statement and questions from the Fine Gael Party followed by a statement and questions from the Labour Party and then a general discussion. Is that agreed? Agreed. I invite the Minister of State to make his opening statement.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Tony Killeen)

I apologise on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Gormley, who is unavoidably absent and would have wished to be here for this Supplementary Estimate. On his behalf, and on behalf of Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, the Minister of State, Deputy Hoctor, and myself, we look forward to working closely with the committee during the term of this Dáil on legislation, Estimates and all kinds of other business in which the committee may have an interest. I am accompanied by officials from my Department, Terry Allen, Peter McCann, Enda Falvey and David Smith.

I welcome the opportunity to present and discuss with the committee the proposed Supplementary Estimate requirement for an additional €50 million under subhead C1 of the Department's Vote for which I am seeking Dáil approval. The additional funding is required to facilitate ongoing construction of water and waste water schemes approved under the Department's water services investment programme. A briefing note has been made available to the committee setting out why the additional funding is needed and providing an overview of current activity in the water services sector.

The proposal to increase water services capital funding by a further €50 million this year reflects the commitment to this important sector by the Minister, Deputy Gormley, myself and the Government. The national development plan provides for a total of €4.7 billion in capital spending for water services infrastructure - an increase of 27% on the €3.7 billion spent under the previous plan.

Last September, the Minister launched the latest phase of the Department's water services investment programme. The programme includes 955 schemes. It identifies the schemes to start construction in the years 2007 to 2009, along with others that have been authorised to begin planning with a view to construction commencing in the period post 2009. The programme is an ambitious one and this is as it should be.

The preservation and improvement of environment standards and of our water quality, along with the provision of sustainable water services, is a key issue for Ireland. It is central to the Government's environmental policies and one to which I attach a very high priority in the Department. Great effort and resources have been devoted in recent years to the upgrading of our water services infrastructure. In addition to meeting environmental and water quality objectives, water services capital investment also plays a crucial role in support of social and economic development in an expanding economy with a growing population. The €4.7 billion for water services in the NDP is an unprecedented commitment to the provision of the infrastructure needed to support development and economic growth while, at the same time, ensuring environmental sustainability.

I would like to outline for the committee the scale and scope of what is happening under the water services investment programme in order to clarify why I am looking for the Supplementary Estimate. I also intend to comment on other important recent developments in the regulatory and standards areas.

The priority for water services over the NDP period is to meet environmental goals and objectives while also facilitating economic, housing and other development. Specific targets include meeting in full our obligations under national and EU law in relation to drinking water standards and the disposal of waste water. These targets are also reflected in the programme for Government and Towards 2016. Without adequate water services infrastructure, no development can take place, nor can environmental standards be preserved. In other words, this programme is at the core of the development process across the country.

In this first year of the new NDP, an Exchequer provision of €446.6 million has been made available for water services infrastructure. This includes a €20 million capital carryover from the Department's 2006 Vote. Activity on the programme in 2007 is up on last year. This is reflected in the end of November expenditure figures which are up 10% on this time last year, due to the increasing number of schemes that have advanced to the construction stage. At the end of 2006, 77 schemes were in progress. The number of schemes in progress at the end of this year will have risen to 120 and a further series of schemes are expected to start in 2008.

The increased momentum on the programme reflects more streamlined procedures introduced by the Department in 2006 to accelerate progress with individual projects. For example, schemes valued under €5 million can now proceed right through to construction after they receive preliminary approval without further reference to the Department, provided they remain within the agreed budget. In addition, the need for departmental approval to award a contract has also been dropped for all traditionally procured projects, irrespective of value, provided the costs remain within budget parameters.

The resulting speeding up of progress on individual schemes is something to be welcomed. The dividend of investment in our water services infrastructure more than pays off in terms of environmental gain, as we clean up our rivers and lakes, in social and economic capital, and as a support to investment in social and economic development.

The increased capital funding of recent years has transformed the quality, coverage and scale of our water services infrastructure. The €3.7 billion spent under NDP 2000-2006 has resulted in major progress in preserving and improving environmental standards, as well as supporting unprecedented social and economic growth and development in every part of the country. Some of the more significant achievements include increased compliance with the requirements of the EU urban waste water treatment directive from 25% in 2000 to some 92% at present. All remaining schemes necessary for full compliance with the directive are included in: the water services investment programme; the provision of additional waste water treatment capacity equivalent to the needs of a population of 3.1 million; the corresponding increase in drinking water treatment capacity would service a population of 768,000; the completion of over 350 schemes, including some exceptionally large waste water projects in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Wexford, Galway, Drogheda, Dundalk and many other major urban areas; and the provision of some 90,000 residential sites under the serviced land initiative to date. We are building on this progress to ensure there is continuing capacity to service activities that will maintain economic growth and allow development to take place in an environmentally sustainable way. The Supplementary Estimate is required for schemes being put in place expressly for that purpose to ensure that critical momentum on this investment programme is maintained.

While good progress is being made in providing vital new infrastructure, I am aware there is a parallel need for increased emphasis on regulation and enforcement to ensure that the environmental and water quality targets are also delivered on. We must complement the capital investment with better monitoring and tighter controls to ensure that drinking water quality consistently meets the highest standards. Waste water treatment plants also must perform to optimum level at all times to ensure that discharges do not adversely impact on our rivers and lakes.

Earlier this year, new drinking water regulations and related monitoring requirements were introduced by the Minister, Deputy Gormley. The regulations give new powers of supervision and enforcement to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, regarding local authorities' performance of their functions in respect of drinking water. The agency now has direct supervisory responsibility for local authority water supplies. While local authorities continue to be responsible for supervising group scheme supplies, the agency is required to supervise the performance by local authorities of their monitoring functions over group schemes. These provisions, which will be further strengthened by the commencement of key operational sections of the Water Services Act 2007 before the end of the year, will provide a strong legal framework to underpin the delivery of quality water supplies across the country at both local authority and group scheme level.

Regulations were also made in September introducing an EPA licensing system for discharges from local authority waste water treatment works and collection systems. The EPA can stipulate licence conditions to ensure compliance with mandatory discharge standards and conformity with obligations under EU environmental directives. Failure by a local authority to comply with a condition of a licence will be an offence.

The importance of drinking water quality was brought home forcefully to all of us this summer by the cryptosporidium crisis in Galway. When the Department's water services investment programme was announced in September the Department outlined the steps it is taking, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, to develop a systematic and accelerated response to the cryptosporidium risk, as well as to persistent e.coli failures in public water supplies. These measures include a new contingency funding arrangement to deal with priority infrastructural upgrades.

The Department and the EPA are examining the latest drinking water quality results with a view to cataloguing those supplies at greatest risk from cryptosporidium and also supplies that are subject to continuing e.coli or other chemical exceedences. I expect this analysis to be completed within the next few months. The objective is to develop an action programme that identifies an appropriate solution in each case. This could involve abandoning an existing source, upgrading the treatment plant or improving the operation and maintenance regime. The contingency funding arrangements will apply where infrastructural works are urgently required that have not already been provided for in the current or previous phases of the Department's water services investment programme. The EPA will oversee implementation of any necessary remedial actions as part of its enhanced supervisory function under the new drinking water regulations. Where strong action becomes necessary the agency will take it.

The record level of funding devoted to water services infrastructure in recent years has allowed us to make unprecedented progress in compliance with national and European Union requirements on water quality and waste water discharges. The resulting environmental benefits provide critical support for tourism, water-based activities and overall quality of life. Good quality water services infrastructure helps to promote inward investment. It also aids enterprise and job creation and facilitates social and economic development. All of these activities have a crucial bearing on our overall prosperity and living standards.

The importance of investment to further expand the scope and coverage of the national water services infrastructure is universally recognised and acknowledged, and is a central element of the national development plan. The additional €50 million Supplementary Estimate is required to facilitate ongoing construction of schemes that have been approved for funding under the Department's water services investment programme as part of the overall NDP strategy. Schemes currently under construction and costing in the region of €30 million to €60 million include the following: Ballymore Eustace water treatment plant; Donegal Bay waste water treatment plant; lower Liffey Valley sewerage scheme; Portlaoise sewerage scheme; and Castlebar environs sewerage scheme.

Schemes in the water services investment programme have been prioritised and approved in accordance with specific criteria to meet particular objectives. The overall objective is to preserve environmental and water quality standards, facilitate sustainable development and provide support for the national spatial strategy. The proposed Supplementary Estimate will ensure there is no loss of momentum in the provision of essential infrastructure and that we can continue to respond effectively to the demands of a growing economy and an increasing population who rightly expect the best quality services and environmental standards.

I assure the committee that the Minister, Deputy Gormley, and myself are positively committed to the full implementation of the water services investment programme. There will be a high level of spending on the programme in 2008 and the Department will ensure the positive momentum that has been built up is maintained.

I have outlined the reasons this Supplementary Estimate is required and hope the committee will be positively disposed to the necessity for the additional requirement of €50 million in the current year. I will endeavour to respond to any queries members may wish to raise.

Chairman

I thank the Minister of State for his opening comprehensive statement. I call Deputy Hogan to make a statement or pose questions.

Deputy Phil Hogan

I wish to make a few brief comments and ask some questions. I support the Supplementary Estimate of €50 million. The water services investment programme is important and is an integral part of improving the quality of life of all our citizens.

I wish to make some observations. The Water Quality in Ireland 2006 report indicated serious problems regarding the quality of drinking water. In the period 2004-06, 57% of ground water monitoring locations had coliforms of one form or another in at least one sample. That represents an increase of 8% on the previous reporting period of 2001-03, with 32% of the sites having greater than ten coliforms in at least one sample. That serious problem was brought to our attention arising from the report on water quality carried out in 2006.

The second part of that report indicated that phosphate levels were very high in some of our river basins, including one in the River Barrow in my constituency, where phosphate levels in 11 large rivers, including the River Barrow, were much higher than the average or medium level along the River Shannon. What impact are the 2006 phosphorous regulations having to date on improving that position? The Minister of State might have some information on that issue.

A recent EPA report outlined the problems in providing safe drinking water. Some 26% of all drinking water in Ireland comes from ground water through wells. According to the EPA, the ground water is heavily contaminated along the lines I mentioned. It is important, therefore, that we continue to adopt a proactive approach to getting schemes up and running as quickly as possible.

Reports published some time ago drew attention to problems involving group water schemes. There is considerable anxiety concerning group water schemes on two fronts. With the bundling of projects, a problem might arise in one area that could spill over into the entire group scheme or bundling of schemes in terms of responsibilities. A great deal of voluntary effort was exercised over the years in the delivery of schemes to provide drinking water to communities. I salute the community effort that delivered those schemes. When a community requests the Department or a local authority to take charge of a scheme, its members find it difficult to get the local authority to undertake any major initiative to bring such schemes under its wing. It is similar to taking housing estates in charge. County councils and local authorities generally do not want to do that because it places a financial burden on them. That should not be the case. The local authority should be directly responsible for roads or water, in so far as that is possible.

The Minister of State referred to a contingency fund. I would be interested to know the sum he has in mind in that regard considering the current economic position in which we find ourselves and the new contingency arrangements to deal with problems the Minister of State has identified, such as those in Galway. When the cryptosporidium problem arose in Galway, the then Minister, Deputy Roche, was at pains to point out to the public that the local authority was allocated a great deal of money but there was no sign of it implementing the programme he had approved. Will the Minister of State explain what happened in that regard? Either the former Minister, Deputy Roche, was wrong or the local authority was wrong but in any case the public in Galway had no water supply for a long period. We should look after the customer rather than engage in the blame game.

This situation is interesting and gives us an insight into how approval is given for water and sewerage projects. I am told that the process can take four and a half years from the time the Department signs off on a scheme of a certain size with a local authority. That was the case up to 2006. Some changes were made in small schemes in 2006 but if I make representations on behalf of a community for the provision of an upgraded water scheme to improve water quality or the provision of a sewerage scheme, the officials in Kilkenny County Council have told me that it could take four and a half years before all the toing and froing on the design of the scheme stops. Are we getting our act together in this regard, so that when approval is given to a local authority, the work can commence much sooner than the timescale that is currently allowed for all the toing and froing?

New penalties have been introduced by the Minister for local authorities that do not fulfil their responsibilities with regard to the pollution of streams in their areas. That is fine but what if the local authority sent in an application for a project four or five years ago and there is no sign of money being allocated for it? Is the local authority directly responsible for a particular offence and will that be taken into account when the EPA is hounding the local authority to get its act together and deal with the alleged pollution? In many cases the pollution is not alleged but is actually happening. I can only speak on the basis of my local experience. As a result of the bundling of projects in the Department, which affects various schemes in County Kilkenny, there is no sign of money being allocated even if the scheme is part of the water and sewerage schemes investment programme. That is causing frustration with the investment programme among local authorities and communities. While it is fine in theory to have all that money allocated, we do not see the programme being implemented in the speedy fashion one would expect to meet the requirements that will be imposed on it, and which are already imposed by the European Union.

Development charges in local authorities are playing a bigger role in the capacity of a local authority to meet the cost of water investment programmes. Kilkenny County Council, for example, estimates that €200 million is required to upgrade its water schemes. A total of €110 million of that sum must come from local sources, that is, development charges. That is 55% of the funding. In 2004, under the Planning and Development Act, the development charges schedule was drawn up to ensure that local authorities effectively funded many of the programmes themselves. All the major urban centres had been funded 100% before the development charges became part and parcel of the capital requirement for improving water quality and sewerage services. It is an extraordinary amount of money to expect to come from local sources at a time when the local authority might have other requirements. Is the Minister of State aware of a similar experience in Clare?

Will the Minister of State outline what we are doing to meet the serious requirements that will be imposed on us under the water services directive in 12 or 18 months? What progress will be made next year? It might be wise of the Minister to omit any mention of the national spatial strategy in his speeches. That document was drawn up for the purpose of being duly ignored in many parts of the country and in many Government initiatives. It should be omitted from the script. It does not do the Minister justice, a man who would understand these matters, to make reference to a water services programme under the national spatial strategy. I look forward to the Minister of State's comments on the problems I see at local level in implementing a water services programme.

Chairman

Perhaps the Minister of State will respond. I indicated that he would deal with questions from the two main Opposition spokespersons first.

Deputy Tony Killeen

A number of questions were raised and similar and related questions will probably be raised by other members. The phosphate levels Deputy Hogan referred to are mainly related to river and lake water as opposed to drinking water, which is specifically what is required in the context of the current Supplementary Estimate. It is probably a little early to measure the impact of the phosphates directive given that it is a recent directive. It will emerge over time with the various EPA reports.

With regard to group water schemes and the concerns that have arisen due to the bundling of schemes, there are a couple of reasons for bundling schemes. The principal one is that it creates a critical mass which makes the schemes easier to manage and more cost effective. The national federation has had considerable involvement in this. I am aware that there are some areas where individual issues have arisen and their resolution has taken much longer than the group scheme members would have wished. However, I understand they are all being dealt with.

Undoubtedly, the requirement to ensure that drinking water quality is what it should be can only be addressed in the majority of these cases by putting treatment systems in place. While there have been teething problems, they have gradually been worked out. I am particularly grateful to the National Federation of Group Water Schemes for its input. It is a new situation for group water scheme members because they are dealing with the local authority at one level, the Department has an involvement and there is usually a client's representative who is a consultant and who is supposed to deal with the contractors. It is a new process for many group water schemes and that mainly accounts for some of the difficulties that have arisen. I am aware of the difficulties and they are being addressed. If Deputy Hogan wishes to bring specific cases to my attention, I will ensure that progress is made as quickly as possible.

I note the Deputy's point about councils' reluctance to take over schemes. Generally, they require a certain standard. That standard is more likely to be reached in the present situation since the schemes are investing a very significant amount of money in upgrading the standard of their supplies, so this will become less of a problem. Furthermore, there are particular responsibilities on the council in that regard under the 2007 Act.

The EPA is doing some work with regard to the contingency fund. There is no specific limit on the fund at this time.

Deputy Phil Hogan

How great is it?

Deputy Tony Killeen

Hopefully, the great part is that there will not be a huge requirement for it. It appears from the information available to me that the areas where one might have expected difficulty are likely to be included in the programme announced by the Minister in September.

Deputy Phil Hogan

Is it a rolling fund?

Deputy Tony Killeen

Hopefully it will be assimilated within the major fund of investment the Minister announced in the September. I believe it will be.

There is a cryptosporidium working group which will set out how issues of this nature can be dealt with. There were specific problems in Galway with regard to the source of the cryptosporidium and they are gradually being resolved. Deputy Hogan referred to the delays with large schemes. His remarks would probably be echoed by almost every Deputy and Senator in the Oireachtas. Some of the very large schemes require a very significant amount of work. People generally do not appreciate the amount of preparatory work to be done by consultants and engineering personnel at all levels. The Department is also required, when spending taxpayers' money, to oversee the process and ensure there is value for money and that procedures are of the highest standard. That is what it tries to do. There has been a considerable improvement in the timescale for getting some of the schemes to completion.

The Deputy mentioned the cost for Kilkenny County Council out of the total gross cost of the schemes. He also made a comment I hear quite frequently, to the effect that the urban centres appear to escape this cost. One of the reasons was that the urban centres had a population density that would, in any event, have got them in under the polluter pays principle deadline that has been set. Even if it had been in place for those schemes, it would not have made any difference because of their population density and the advantages they have in terms of scale. The cost is a difficulty for some councils and undoubtedly it will have to be reviewed. There is the domestic sector and sometimes issues are raised by councils with regard to the business sector. Councils that have been tolling the development levy most in recent years appear to be the best at ensuring their schemes go ahead. I do not know if I missed any questions there but those were the main issues I noted.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

I thank the Minister of State for informing the committee about the Supplementary Estimate. I wish to raise two main points with him. One has already been referred to by Deputy Hogan, but I wish to pursue it further.

I had a meeting last Friday with the Cork county manager, Mr. Martin O'Riordan, who stated emphatically that the amount of money being spent on development levies to subsidise the water services investment programme is quite extensive, to the extent that some 90% of development levies are being spent in this area. I found it quite surprising that, as he also said, less than 5% of development levies are being spent on the provision of recreational amenities, such is the pressure coming on the board to fulfil these goals. Does the Minister of State see the development levy as some sort of subsidy on top of the €50 million which we are discussing today, or does he envisage a situation whereby development levies become ring-fenced in some way so that there is a broader spread, rather than just spending that money on water investment programmes?

The Minister of State raised point eight of the report which states that the failure by local authorities to comply with the conditions of a licence will be an offence. Will he provide more detail on that? What type of offence is envisaged and what penalties will local authorities incur as a result? On the other side of the coin, will there be incentives and motivations for local authorities to be compliant?

Water services constitute a disparate and broad-based system because old and new, rural and urban communities are all tied into it. In particular, many old urban communities have lead piping which is now obsolete. Subsidence in some urban areas has caused a loss of water pressure and a deterioration in water quality. Does the Minister of State envisage that this funding will be used to resolve such difficulties?

Deputy Tony Killeen

Deputy Lynch has raised a number of issues. I suspect the experience of the Cork county manager may not differ greatly from what his colleagues around the country are saying. The raison d’être for development levies was to enable councils to have a fund they could use to supplement the grant aid available from the Department for such schemes. I understand the Deputy’s point, which is that when the programme becomes big, it squeezes out other desirable activities such as recreational amenities. However, there is a lot of pressure on water schemes both in terms of local development and at EU level, as Deputies will be aware, so there is an urgency about dealing with this matter.

To be fair, water and waste water infrastructure represented a major cost at one time, but hopefully future costs will be considerably less. The Department is examining the water services pricing policy as regards the impact arising for smaller towns and villages. There are clearly situations, if not in the current phase then certainly in some future phases, where a different pricing policy will have to be put in place because the authorities will have spent all the money they have in building up infrastructure. That matter will have to be kept under review.

As regards penalties for local authorities, my understanding is that an authority that fails to meet its targets will be given an action plan to implement. Local authorities will be given a reasonable but very short period within which to show movement in that regard. There is a provision for summary conviction in court, or conviction on indictment. There is a fairly strong regime in place for dealing with local authorities in that regard.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

Besides water quality, water pressure has fallen in urban areas due to subsidence. Does this funding also lend itself to resolving those problems?

Deputy Tony Killeen

There is a strong water conservation programme. Research indicates that, both in local authority and group water schemes, a wastage level of 50% is quite modest. There are very considerable wastage levels in some cases but, to be fair to local authorities, it is hardly surprising in areas where piped networks were laid 40 or 50 years ago. Unfortunately, in the interim, green spaces have been built upon and all kinds of traffic went over them. It is difficult to find the source of such a leakage and sometimes it is quite difficult to replace it because historically connections were made to the rear of houses. Nobody knows where some of these pipes are.

In the conservation programme, they are cutting off sections and measuring them to see how much water is being used. They measure the figure against what would be a reasonable usage for the number of people involved, while replacing some sections. There will be a substantial cost involved in the replacement programme, which is under way. The Department is confident that it will reduce demand for water and the cost of treatment, in addition to creating better water pressure and a more reliable supply for householders. The Department is making 90% grant aid available for that particular conservation programme.

Deputy James Bannon

I welcome the Minister of State. Water is a valuable asset which is coming under increasing pressure from economic development. We are all facing the challenge of trying to meet international water quality standards. We saw the crisis in Galway last year concerning the quality of drinking water there. The Minister of State said he has established a working group, but has he sought reports from each local authority on water quality in their respective counties? Developments have posed risks for several local authorities in recent years. I do not wish to be overly parochial, but for the past two years the local authority has been drawing sewage from the treatment plant in my own village. Raw sewage has run into the River Inny that provides water for south County Longford. This matter has been brought to the Department's notice on several occasions by the local authority. It is a top priority for the local authority. This situation could be replicated in several other counties, so it is important to deal with such issues as urgently as possible. It is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

The treatment of waste water needs to be prioritised. Clean water is expensive to produce, but a huge amount is being wasted throughout the country. Deputy Lynch referred to the takeover of group water schemes, many of which were constructed back in the 1950s and 1960s. At that time, mains were not laid along public roads but were brought through people's land to accommodate the water supply. It would take a major investment to renew such schemes, so in some cases new schemes will be required, which will have to be laid along public roads. The Department has underestimated the cost of renewing group water schemes because local authorities will not take over schemes that are not adjacent to public property. This major issue needs to be addressed by the Department.

Deputy Tony Killeen

On the water quality report of the cryptosporidium working group, the EPA has sought reports from each of the councils. It is a risk assessment based approach. One of the areas which has been looked at very carefully is source preservation, which is the very point the Deputy made. That is something on which the EPA and the councils are working and we will get a report on it. It may well mean that some waste water schemes will have to be moved on more quickly than had been intended. The Deputy made that very point. In waste water schemes, including in the example the Deputy gave, it is a matter of urgency that is addressed if it is likely to contaminate a source. That is something which undoubtedly the EPA and local authorities will pinpoint in their joint approach.

The same point was made by Deputy Hogan on the taking over of group water schemes. That is one of the issues which arises frequently. In the good old days, if the shortest way was across a field, that was the direction the pipe went. County councils are anything but enthusiastic about taking over that particular legacy.

However, a very significant amount of work is under way. This year the outturn will run to approximately €142 million for the group water scheme sector. Some of the funding is for treatment, quite a lot of it is for extensions and a very large amount, including €2 million in my area, is to replace approximately 80% of the pipe network which was damaged or, in some instances, was not placed where it should have been.

In CLÁR areas, the Department, local authorities and group scheme members appreciate there is top up funding from CLÁR which addresses a particular issue that arises where the cost per connection is a long way outside the parameters the Department would normally apply.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

Coming from a rural constituency, I wish to highlight the importance of schemes to small towns and villages. While a few developments are taking place and a few schemes are in progress, I am not satisfied that there are enough. We need many more. While there has been progress in major urban settlements over the years, smaller settlements have been held back due to lack of sewerage and water facilities. Perhaps the Minister of State will indicate whether many more schemes will come on stream. After all, we are told by planners and everybody else that development must take place in towns and villages. I do not agree with that but that is what we are hearing. If we are to have that type of development, it is important the infrastructure is in place to deal with it.

We hear from local authorities, which implement this, that they do not have the manpower to install more schemes. They have put in perhaps four in my area. This is not good enough. We must make a greater effort to provide proper water and sewerage infrastructure in small towns and villages if we are to make any progress on their development. I would like the Minister of State to respond to that issue.

I highlight what was said about the older scheme, which is a very serious issue in my constituency. Many group schemes were undertaken years ago. They now find themselves at the back of the queue. They should be given priority because they laid a trail in the past. Such schemes should be looked at very favourably and, in many case, prioritised.

Deputy Tony Killeen

Deputy O'Sullivan made the point about the importance of schemes for small towns and villages. The point has often been made that major towns and cities appeared to be dealt with first. There was a very good reason for that. In the first instance, the urban waste water treatment directive was a bit of a driver. Difficulties also arose and we were probably fortunate that there were not many more Galway-type situations. Now that the majority of schemes for major towns and cities have substantially been addressed, although not completely in some instances, it is possible for the Department and local authorities to turn their attention to smaller towns and villages.

In the current programme, I am told there is provision for a scheme for every town or village with a population in excess of 1,000 and for a great many below that. Every town or village with a population of over 1,000 is in the programme. Since major cities and towns have been, or are in the process of being, dealt with, the hope is that the level of finance available will continue and that it will ensure much progress is made for the people about whom Deputy O'Sullivan spoke.

The assessment of needs process is exclusively the preserve of local authorities which is very important. Many factors besides population come into play, including, in the current climate, consideration of issues raised by the EPA in regard to source protection and all kinds of other issues which might arise in that context.

I am not surprised people in areas with large populations are raising the matter of group schemes, as is the case with Deputy O'Sullivan. He made an interesting point, which I believe is accurate, that group schemes which were to the fore in the past are naturally the most out of date and, in some respects, need to be rescued. One of the great developments in that area has been the active interaction of the National Federation of Group Water Schemes with the Department. It has provided a conduit for ideas, information and exchange which was not there previously. It has been very effective in ensuring we get the best value for the €142 million in the programme this year.

Some of the people about whom Deputy O'Sullivan spoke were involved in schemes when there was no federation and, in some instances, may not be interacting with it, which is a great pity. We should advise people with queries about group water schemes to speak to two bodies to which they would not have spoken previously, namely, county councils and the federation. County councils have been excellent in their dealings with group schemes over the past three or four years. People should also speak to the federation which provides specific advice at a level to which members of group schemes are able to relate. That is very important.

The requirement in regard to schemes with 50 plus members is one which is driving that in a particular way and it may be another factor in delaying some of the schemes about which Deputy O'Sullivan is concerned.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

We have very good quality tap water in Kildare and have not yet tapped into the Seven Springs which supply the Grand Canal and Guinness. I hope we never have to do that. I refer to group water schemes and small group waste water schemes. There is a very significant difference between the grants available for a water scheme and for a small waste water scheme.

Rural areas need water and sewerage infrastructure. If we are to attract people and jobs to rural areas, we must have broadband and water and sewerage infrastructure. The Department should see its way to providing additional funding for small waste water schemes. The installation of small sewerage schemes can be done more cheaply than in the past because new methods and technology are being used.

The people of Kildare, which is on the periphery of Dublin, have been told that if its major waste water treatment plant at Osberstown is upgraded, it will still only cater for the number of planning permissions currently granted in County Kildare. We have a serious problem in Kildare. Where are we to put our waste water? There will be overcapacity in the River Liffey. Are we to pipe it to Ringsend?

Growth in Kildare has been substantial over the years. We need growth and jobs, which go hand in hand. The Department and the local authority in Kildare would want to work closely to ensure we do not face a serious situation because this issue almost affected planning permission for a primary school in a small village. In that case there were concerns about the community gain on the part of the housing development that was giving the site for the school as to whether or not planning permission would be granted because it would impact on the system.

I fully support the Supplementary Estimate sought by the Minister of State. Can we accept more private funding from people, some of whom I know, who want to undertake development in rural or urban areas and who want to upgrade the infrastructure? Such developers are being discouraged in providing such funding.

Deputy Tony Killeen

I am pleased to hear that the water quality in Kildare is generally good. Gradually, we are reaching the stage where many places which previously encountered substantial problems are moving in the right direction.

Deputy Fitzpatrick mentioned small waste water and sewerage schemes which, as he quite correctly stated, are less attractive, partly because of the grant system, but also because there are technical and other issues which make them less suitable to being dealt with at a voluntary level than water schemes. The Tipperary pilot scheme currently under way will be finished probably some time in the middle of next year or at least we will have a report on it towards the end of next year. I hope it will chart a way forward for such schemes because it is quite encouraging. There are also issues where small waste water schemes might be useful in addressing source protection issues and that is a matter about which I spoke to the Federation of Group Water Schemes and in which the Department is obviously interested.

Deputy Fitzpatrick voiced concern that the current upgrade of the waste water plant will only accommodate existing developments because the River Liffey is considered to be under pressure. The upgrade of Dublin strategic study on drainage will address that issue and whatever benefits will accrue in the case of Dublin will also be reflected in the capacity of the River Liffey in Kildare. We are expecting a positive outcome in that regard. It will take a little time.

I am interested in Deputy Fitzpatrick's idea about more private funding. I suppose the genesis of the idea of the development fund was along these lines in that in many cases a local development would be undertaking a scheme that was relatively small and it would not have made sense to install a waste water treatment plant just for that development and leave out all the surrounding area. The mechanism to deal with that was to enable the local authority levy a charge which would go into a fund which would enable it provide funding towards the cost, and that is exactly what was discussed with Deputies Ciarán Lynch and Hogan earlier. If the local authority is well disposed and there is a developer prepared to provide a facility of the proper standards, of course it is something on which we would encourage local authorities to look as favourably as possible.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

My point was that private developers are willing but local authorities are not willing to take them on board.

Deputy Tony Killeen

Sometimes the local authority would say it has a concern that the proposal put forward by the developer is not to the standard required or does not necessarily accommodate the area the local authority would wish dealt with. Although I am not sure whether this is justified, frequently the local authority would say that the developer will propose something that would deal with the immediate concerns of his or her own landbank which would not be a sensible solution in the context of an overall town or village plan. When there are people prepared to spend money and a local authority is in a position where it wants a job done, the local authority really should engage in a positive manner with such people and try to come to an accommodation. We certainly encourage local authorities to do so and I am sure Deputies would do likewise with their local authorities.

Deputy Phil Hogan

I support Deputy Fitzpatrick's comment on this matter. There is inconsistency across local authorities in how their staff deal with developers in extracting a few more euro. The problem is there is no trust between local authority staff and developers. We are supposed to be in favour of public private partnerships. This is the perfect PPP at local level. If somebody wants to provide a scheme of 20 or 30 houses and has €500,000 set aside for the purposes of enhancing the infrastructure of the area, we should be opening the door wide to such people in order to enhance the implementation of the local water investment programme.

There is also inconsistency in the package plants which are temporary solutions towards the provision of sewerage services in villages. There is new technology where there are package plants available and the local authorities - I do not know whether the Department is telling them not to do it - seem inconsistent in that what is acceptable in one county might not be acceptable in another. The Department needs to sort that out because it is another way of leveraging local development moneys in addition to the local development charges. Much lateral thinking can be done here where in response to putting in a few additional euro for the infrastructure, the development levies could be waived for the developer. One can achieve much flexibility in the system. The main issue is to get the job done to a high standard and local authority officials are not doing that to the best of their ability.

The group sewerage scheme grant has not been increased for the past six or seven years, unlike the water scheme grant. There is great work being done on group water schemes. There is no reason that the Department cannot provide the €6,500 per household for the sewerage scheme grant as is done for the water scheme. There are many schemes left in the queue for years because they are not viable at present. If the Minister of State is in a position to provide a little extra funding in this regard in 2008, it would make a considerable difference.

Earlier I asked about the four and a half years' delay for a small basic scheme due to the toing and froing over design and consultants, about which I was told at local authority level. Can the Department put a system in place which cuts out many of the necessary stages, which are a delaying tactic on behalf of somebody?

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I support the PPPs too. This is the way to get these small schemes completed. It will have the effect of getting them done in 12 months rather than six or seven years in some cases. The record of local authorities in undertaking such schemes is diabolical. The schemes are just drawn out and they are not being done whereas if the private sector was involved, the schemes would be done in 12 months in many cases. We should encourage more of that. Whatever way we go about it, it is important, especially in the smaller schemes, to get PPPs up and running rather than wait for local authorities to undertake their own schemes.

Deputy Tony Killeen

Both Deputies raised that general point. The Department would be more than happy to see an engagement by developers but, ultimately, we must accept that the local authority is the best judge.

I accept Deputy Hogan's point that not all local authorities embrace the opportunity in the same way, but not all of them are dealing with exactly the same technical issues either in some of the situations and it is difficult to judge. The serviced land initiative is developer led in many instances, as Deputy Hogan will be aware, and there has been considerable success in that area.

On package plants, there is new technology. Local authorities are accused of adopting an inconsistent approach, but their engineers would frequently say that a package plant that works particularly well in one location with one set of circumstances might not be suitable in another.

Deputy Phil Hogan

General guidelines should be set down.

Deputy Tony Killeen

There is doubt about what is the most efficacious response in some of these areas and it is a matter on which people are working.

I agree entirely with Deputy Hogan that the group sewerage scheme grants are not attractive and are not driving progress in that area. One of the reasons is that we would like to be informed by the outcome of the pilot scheme, which we think will get us over many of the difficulties in that area. I hope a scheme will be designed arising from that which will make them more viable.

Deputy Phil Hogan

We will have to wait another year.

Deputy Tony Killeen

A mistake is made that many of us look, from a layman's point of view, on the sewage treatment plant as a collection facility. Ultimately, the real difficulty is with treatment and that is where the costs arise in terms of the plant. If the outcome is not good, obviously there is much money spent and much concern in that regard.

The delays mentioned by Deputy Hogan and the delays with the major schemes are under review. The last review had the effect of foreshortening the process and, for example, taking the €5 million schemes and the ones that stay under budget out of it. That has been positive and as we move along, an increasing number of the schemes will be in that category. The current review will address some of the other concerns to which the Deputy refers.

Deputy Phil Hogan

When will the results of the review be available?

Deputy Tony Killeen

They should be available by the middle of the year at the latest.

Deputy Phil Hogan

The middle of 2008.

Deputy Tony Killeen

Yes.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

The Department approved small wastewater treatment plants, mainly in towns and villages, in order to facilitate the provision of additional housing. As well as providing such housing in rural areas, we also want to create jobs. We should look favourably on projects where the provision of wastewater schemes in rural areas would achieve both goals.

Deputy Tony Killeen

The polluter pays principle provides that local authorities pay for the non-domestic element. That is a factor in this regard. I cannot think of anyone among the county managers with whom I am familiar who does not go to all possible lengths to facilitate, for example, incoming industries. It is the latter with which Deputy Fitzpatrick is mainly concerned. Where there are such opportunities, local authorities, county managers and members are making the case for schemes such as those to which the Deputy refers. They are also accommodated within the Department's thinking.

Chairman

Most people find the information provided in the water services investment programme that the Department publishes each year confusing. For example, there are lists of projects at different stages of progress. In typical circumstances, there may be an investment programme of €200 million for a particular year but only €20 million or €30 million of this might be earmarked for spending in that year. However, when the press release is issued, the general impression is that the entire amount will be available. The Department never states how much will be available to individual counties or local authorities in a particular year. It provides the figure for the overall cost of the programme but some of the projects to which this relates may be at the planning phase only or may be in construction.

Local newspapers and Deputies often misinterpret the overall figures provided by the Department. When issuing its annual press release in respect of this matter or at some other stage, the Department might provide figures for the money that might actually be available for the following 12 months. The figures to which I refer are not provided on a county-by-county basis.

The Minister of State referred to the September guidelines from the EPA. Do these guidelines relate to new or existing facilities? What will be the penalties involved?

As regards schemes valued at under €5 million, my honest impression is that the concept behind bundling is to ensure those responsible for such schemes do not get involved in that regard. I could provide a list of ten villages in County Laois with schemes that would come in at under €5 million. However, they would all be placed together in a bundle. This means that problems relating to all of them would have to be solved before the first project could commence. Some of the schemes to which I refer would have been completed by now but they have been delayed because the others had to be checked. I accept that there is a rationale behind this. We will be informed that it is being done this way for efficiency, that a contract to design, build and operate can be put out to tender and that the council water works operative can be replaced by a contractor. I do not know - I am not sure if the Department is aware of this either - whether the economics of doing this are valid.

Will the €50 million that will be voted through in the House in the coming days be spent? What is the position with this money and will it be allocated to the five big areas? Are the councils aware that it is on its way in order that it might be spent? There is no point in merely allocating money. Is it designed to clear the overdrafts of five councils or will some of it be allocated to Portlaoise, Castlebar and elsewhere? In that context, the job in Portlaoise has almost been completed.

Deputy Tony Killeen

The Chairman made a valid attempt not to be parochial. Almost all of us would reflect his view in respect of the published programme. If one is asked about a particular scheme, the person asking usually just wants to know when it will be completed rather than when it will commence. It is difficult to be specific about such matters. It would be entirely impossible for the Department or local authorities to present a programme relating to particular schemes moving at a certain pace.

One of the great advantages of the multi-annual programmes is that the Department and councils can operate schemes in a particular way. The idea is that if one such scheme is delayed, there will, one hopes, be another ready to proceed. It would be difficult to do it any other way. If a Government representative announces the programme, Opposition Members are quick to pick holes in it and do not appear to have any difficulty finding the correct figures to enable them to do so. The existing system provides a certain flexibility and it would be difficult to operate any other way. The EPA guidelines to which the Chairman referred cover all schemes.

Bundling has the accidental effect of excluding some schemes. I can refer to two examples of debundling in County Clare. In one case, the scheme relating to the debundled village will proceed much faster than that which caused the delay. In the other instance, it is possible that the two schemes causing the delay will proceed before that which was debundled in order to ensure the overall scheme proceeds more rapidly. People in County Laois do not have concerns about foreshore licences, etc., but it is sometimes difficult to judge when it might be possible to deal with the problems that arise in this regard in other counties.

We should not lose sight of the fact that the major advantage for local authorities lies in the two final phases which relate to operation and maintenance and which can sometimes prove extremely costly. Bundled schemes are, therefore, much more cost-effective for councils. That is the real benefit for them.

Chairman

That concludes our deliberations on the Supplementary Estimate. I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their attendance and participation.

Deputy Tony Killeen

I thank members for their co-operation.