Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

I do not believe a word of it. It also causes me considerable concern that this Bill has emanated from a Department under his guidance and probably explains why it is so extremely right-wing in terms of its proposals. The Water Services Bill should not have been intended to facilitate the privatisation of water services. However, given the Government's record on promises and in particular the previous incumbent's attitude to the Opposition, we can be forgiven for being sceptical particularly given that the Bill contains measures specifically related to the provision of meters.

Part 5 has rightly raised eyebrows and a number of questions, as indicated by previous speakers as regards powers of access for installation, reading and maintenance of meters. Why are meters necessary if it is not the intention to bring forward water charges? I accept that meters have been used in strategic locations by local authorities for many years in terms of attempting to measure the volume of water going through systems. However, increasingly meters are being affixed to all new housing schemes. Why is this happening? Are people to be asked just to reduce the consumption of water? Are they going to be asked to use the toilet less, take fewer showers etc.? Why is there a meter on every home? It certainly raises suspicions on this side of the House as do a number of proposals contained in this Bill.

Section 29, for example, gives complete legal immunity to the Minister, the local authority or the water authority in terms of access or even damage to property in the course of such inspections. Why is such a broad provision included in this Bill? Why is it necessary? On the issue of local democracy in section 36(3) the Minister is taking away the power of members of a local authority to make a plan in respect of water and waste water. That is now to be the complete reserve of county and city managers. We know why this is, because the last two Ministers for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey and Deputy Cullen, both rowed back significantly in terms of the powers of members of local authorities. They loaded those powers onto the executive, the county and city managers. I wonder if the current incumbent will attempt to reverse the trend that has been emerging under those two previous Ministers.

Why should people seek election to a local authority? Increasingly members are being left with no authority. They cannot even sweep the streets, given the current trend. Section 56 prohibits an appeal to the District Court in certain circumstances. Is that not draconian?

My party is completely opposed to the introduction of water charges. We view it as a regressive stealth tax. Given that we oppose direct charges for domestic rates, we cannot support proposals for metering of domestic water supplies. We are firmly of the view that everyone has the right to an adequate supply of safe, clean water as a basic entitlement. Ability to access safe clean water cannot be based on a person's ability to pay for it. The provision of water services is a key responsibility of the State and we are fundamentally opposed to the privatisation of water services. We would point to the disastrous record of privatisation of water services in other states.

Many people believe that water will probably become the "new oil" at a point in the future when the good clean water supply will dictate the wealth of an economy or country. Is this legislation a case of the Government getting its boot in early? I ask the new Minister — he did not do so at the outset in his speech — to reaffirm the position outlined by Deputy Cullen, that water charges will not be introduced and that services will not be privatised. The best way the Minister can assure us that this is his belief would be to amend the parts of this Bill that indicate footsteps leading to privatisation and the charging for water services.

We would also be particularly concerned that water charges may be introduced as a prelude to the making the water services attractive to privatisation, in the same way that waste charges have resulted in the privatisation of waste services in many parts of the State.

One of the biggest concerns, apart from pollution of drinking water, is the problem of leakage which is responsible for the loss of between 30% and 45% of all water, particularly in urban areas. Obviously the situation is improving somewhat. Only two and half years ago there was a report from the Department indicating that between 47% and 53% was being lost. It is absolutely vital that a comprehensive leakage control strategy is put in place to address this. Vast quantities of water are being treated and simply allowed to leak into the ground because of faulty piping. Treating water for public consumption is expensive and losing treated water through leakage is a waste of a valuable resource. Although it is obviously not practical to eliminate leakage completely, we should aim for the lowest possible level. Addressing leakage is an area of savings that has not been fully explored, particularly as a mechanism for releasing extra resources for capital expenditure.

I note section 36 provides for the making of the plan by the executive. I wonder if the new Minister, given that this is not his Bill, will give that little power back to local authority members and reinstate it as a reserve function.

Water quality in this State remains a problem. As I said, I welcome the provision in Part 6 providing for the introduction of a system of licensing for group water schemes. This is particularly important in the light of the fact the EPA reported in February of this year that the overall quality of drinking water supplied by group water schemes remained unsatisfactory. Worryingly, that report also found that some public water supplies consistently breach standards such as aluminium and nitrates.

Before I leave the subject of group water schemes, I commend those members of the community who for many years have been strong in terms of delivering on such schemes and providing an excellent service. Unfortunately my time is up, but I look forward to Committee Stage.

See this speech in context