Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)

Tá áthas orm deis eile a fháil chun labhairt ar an Water Services Bill 2003. I mentioned earlier that the European Commission has to take much of the credit for the introduction of this legislation and a great deal of other legislation. The drinking water regulations contained in SI 439 of 2000 came into force in January 2004. It behoves the Government to uphold the spirit of such directives and not just their letter.

The lessons of the Waste Management Act 1996 need to be learned. Many of the powers given to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the 1996 Act remain unused. I do not need to remind the Minister, who comes from County Wicklow, that many of this country's waste problems are getting worse. The law is being abused and a considerable amount of criminal activity is taking place. The lessons of the Waste Management Act need to be considered as we consider the Water Services Bill. The degree to which the Bill goes into detail about water reminds me of the degree to which the 1996 Act went into detail about waste. The Bill provides for action plans, licensing and the extent of the provision of clean water needed in this country. It remains to be seen if the Bill will follow the same path as the 1996 Act, but it will be interesting to see if we have learnt the lessons of previous legislation.

I suspect that the EU Commission is far from convinced that Ireland has grasped this nettle. It may not believe that we have turned the corner or will behave in an exemplary manner in our future provision of water services. The Commissioner in charge of environmental issues, Ms Margot Wallström, said at a meeting of the EU petitions committee on 9 October last that she is very unhappy about the lack of implementation of EU water supply recommendations in Kilkenny. The local authority has made many attempts to prevent the matter being raised, but it has been finally brought to the attention of the Commission.

I applaud those involved, such as Councillors Mary White and Malcolm Noonan, for pursuing the matter at the petitions committee with the assistance of my former colleague, Ms Nuala Ahern, when she was an MEP. Their work has ensured that the quality of the water enjoyed by the people of Kilkenny has been addressed. Although all the cases have been accepted by the local authority, we await decisive action on the matter. Such a degree of delay does not show Ireland in a great light at the Commission. I urge the Government and the local authority to hasten progress in that regard, thereby ensuring that the Commission has one less reason to complain about Ireland's water quality record.

Much of the media's attention on water quality problems has focused on this country's 5,500 group water schemes. A far more honest picture of Irish water services is revealed when one considers that the water supplied by many group water schemes is not disinfected. The presence of faecal coliforms can be quite sickening for those who have to drink the water in question. While faecal coliforms are not the only problem, they tend to be used as a key measurement of water quality, particularly in group water schemes.

There are many conflicting and vested interests in this country. I hope water quality will not be compromised, particularly in group water schemes, but it seems that a compromise is reached all too often. Large doses of chlorine or other disinfectants are often used in return for such compromise. It is hoped that such substances will mitigate the damage to some extent, but they ultimately leave a false impression that the water supply is adequate. I do not believe that the highly disinfected water supply which often results is good for public health. The Acting Chairman, Deputy Cowley, could probably give me more information in that regard. The amount of chlorine being used in many water schemes cannot be good for one's health. I have never read a recommendation to drink the water in a swimming pool, but the water supplied by group water schemes is often similar to that found in a swimming pool because it contains a similar amount of chlorine.

I have visited various areas throughout the country in which water quality is an issue. I spoke about Lough Corrib and An Cheathrú Rua i gContae na Gaillimhe during my previous contribution on this legislation. Problems are found in many other places, such as parts of counties Clare and Mayo. Such issues arise along the west coast, in particular, because the water table is quite near the surface. There may have been compromises about the way in which water has been treated in the area.

I mentioned that the drinking water regulations contained in SI 439 of 2000 came into force in January 2004. Whatever about the carrot, the regulations may represent the stick which will be used to ensure that Ireland improves its water quality record. I have read comments made by representatives of the Office of Environmental Enforcement, which is planning to audit the water services provided by all local authorities. They have said they can pursue prosecutions in respect of transgressions made by those operating group water schemes, but they cannot prosecute local authorities. I hope that anomaly will be adequately addressed in this legislation. The local authorities ultimately provide the vast majority of the water used in this country.

A problem in the local authority water supply in north Dublin will affect many people. Many local authorities have to take calculated risks with the water supply. A substantial proportion of the water used in the Fingal area is sourced at Ring Commons, which is also known as Bog Of The Ring. The area's water supply will become more vital in the years to come because the population of the district is growing. The site which has been selected for a vast landfill is just a short distance from the water source. When one takes into account buffer zones, etc., the dump will occupy an area of over 300 acres. It has been suggested that there will not be any problems because the dump will be lined. I have concerns because two significant water courses pass through the area and a considerable aquifer is also found in the locality. Nobody has been able to guarantee me that the material used to line landfills does not leak, although claims have been made in that regard. We have been told that the lining can be 70% or 80% guaranteed, but that is not much good. Such percentages are used when one speaks of the safety of condoms. One does not need to be very intelligent to realise that it is hardly a guarantee.

There is a need to be up front about this. A compromise is being reached regarding water quality when dump sites are selected on the basis that the landfill site will somehow prevent leachate getting into aquifers. That sounds like absolute bravado, but we will ultimately pay dearly for that position. One cannot flush out aquifers. Fundamentally, that is what is being proposed.

When local authorities are taking such major decisions, I ask that they take into account the need to limit demand through demand-side reduction. That means installing dual-flush or low-flush WCs and rain water capture tanks for WC flushing or garden use, low-flow showers, high-efficiency appliances, self-closing faucets, digital wireless water meters on commercial premises and so on which have all been well tried in such places as New York where they took the logical economic decision that it would be cheaper to have demand-side reduction than increased provision. I hope local authorities will be forced to take decisions that will prioritise conservation as well as supply.

See this speech in context