Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I congratulate the Minister on his new position. He has moved from responsibilities in Europe to home matters. I have gone in the other direction but I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this legislation. I wish the Minister well with the job ahead.

Having spent four years as a member of Cork County Council I know a reasonable amount about the delivery of water services and some of the complications that can arise. We regularly need debates such as this to consider new ways of thinking about the provision of water.

This Bill sets down a new and updated legislative code dealing with the functions, standards, obligations and practice regarding the planning, management and delivery of water supply, waste water collection and treatment services. On Second Stage we have an opportunity to debate some of the issues surrounding the provision of piped water to homes and businesses, and related issues.

I recognise that the systems for the development of country, city and local area plans have improved somewhat in recent years. Levels of transparency, public consultation in particular and a more positive interaction between public representatives and officials have improved the system. However, the emphasis of area plans still revolves almost entirely around zoning issues to the detriment of other important areas such as the provision and management of water supply. The provision of piped water should play a major part in the practicalities surrounding the decision to zone or re-zone land for a particular purpose. The management of waste water or water run-off is critical and should play more of a part in zoning decisions.

In recent years Ireland has become a milder and arguably wetter place in which to live. Increased rainfall linked with continued extensive building of hectares of new housing estates and concrete roads is resulting in an increased risk of flooding, particularly in low-lying areas. At present we are not adequately anticipating future flooding problems to the extent required if we are to avoid the sort of flooding that has been exacerbated by inadequate drainage or run-off piping capacity. Unfortunately we have had some examples of that in Dublin and Cork. I am not talking of rivers overflowing but of man-made rivers flowing down hillsides into housing estates and causing huge problems. Flooding reports should be part of the planning system for applications with a footprint of more than a certain size, to be decided by the Minister, in areas where significant run-off water may occur, particularly on hillsides.

The next planning issue which needs to be considered is the one which requires developers of land to facilitate future potential development adjacent to their own land. There are many examples of rural villages across the country where housing schemes are being built with sewerage and water provision being planned for, but only for the houses being constructed. A more strategic approach is required by the local authority, not only to link up existing houses in a village which may be expanding, but also to ensure that, for example, water from a well supplied by a developer also takes into account future development within that village. It is ridiculous that one can have 20 or 30 houses in a village, all with their own well and septic tanks, while a housing estate of perhaps 50 or 60 houses is being built beside them without an effort being made to link the houses into the new development.

In some cases local authorities take a very progressive approach to such issues. I would like to see a common standard and mind-set taken in this area by planners, engineers and local authorities. In every county development plan in the country, small towns and villages are being developed as a nucleus for communities which in turn become small towns rather than large villages.

Regarding management of water supply, quality must be the key at all times. We must ensure that the monitoring practices and the standard of both treatment and piping remain high. The debate on the pros and cons of putting fluoride in drinking water rages on. This Bill does not deal specifically with this issue but this Second Stage debate allows me to express some concerns to the new Minister. I do not pretend to be a medical expert but I question the need for mass medication in the fluoride area. We know that medically, fluoride affects different people in different ways. Any medication which has different effects on different people should not be forced on an entire population in a compulsory manner. I am aware of the 2002 fluoridation forum report. However, it has been heavily criticised for concentrating almost exclusively on dental issues and ignoring other potential health complications. With fluoride widely available in toothpaste, mouthwash and other medications, is it still necessary to keep a 30-year-old programme in place mandating the provision of fluoride in all public water supplies in the country?

The Minister needs to reconsider this issue. In every consumer area the trend is about providing choice and information surrounding a product. That is so if we ignore price issues, which for the moment we can do with water. If people buy bottled water, for example, there are strict regulations on labelling, on nutrients and other additives that may have been put into the water. We are currently dealing with that issue in a committee in Europe, with regard to the common marketplace. Yet our public supply of drinking water offers people no choice on whether there are additives and how much of those additives are in place in the water. It also fails to offer real information and, therefore, people do not know what they are drinking.

Are we to continue to insist on a fluoridation policy? Is the policy of using fluoride purely about healthy teeth? If so, are there not other alternatives available? It is valid to ask whether it is necessary to swallow fluoride in order to protect teeth. I do not believe it is necessary to do so. Fluoride is a toxic substance which is considered a poison in the United States. I do not want to over-emphasise this point because I am open to the arguments from those on the other side. However, it is apparent that the arguments against the compulsory addition of fluoride to all water supplies are beginning to stack up. When one considers the position in the rest of Europe, one comes to the conclusion that Ireland is totally out of step and the only country — I stand open to correction but do not believe this will happen — to mandate the addition of fluoride to all public drinking water provided by local authorities.

The other major issue that arises in respect of fluoridation relates to efficiency. I refer here to the utter waste of treated water. An inordinate amount of household water is used for gardening, cleaning cars and filling paddling pools and we are adding fluoride and paying for the privilege with taxpayer's money for this purpose. That is extraordinary. People need to be offered a choice. It is possible, with modern conveniences, for households to apply additives to water if parents, for example, make the decision to do so. I accept that this would not be without complications but the new Minister should have an open mind on the matter.

Other issues related to the monitoring of quality were raised by previous speakers and that of chlorine in water needs to be examined. We need to significantly improve the level of monitoring of water not provided by local authorities. Every farm has its own well and in most instances nobody, including farmers, know what quality of water they and their families are drinking. The Minister must put in place an initiative to ensure there is random testing of water quality. It is unrealistic to expect the water in every well should be examined on a regular basis to monitor its quality. However, we should take some action in this regard because families in rural areas may be poisoning themselves and may not even know it. I say this to make a point. The reality is, however, that we are fortunate in that the vast quantity of water is of excellent quality.

I wish to comment on delivery which overlaps with management. We must insist on obtaining better value for money on the investment we are making in the provision of drinking water. In that context, the first thing we must do is consider the state of piping systems in order to minimise the amount of water being wasted through leaks. I recall this matter being debated by Cork County Council and the estimate provided regarding the amount of water leaking from existing pipes was staggering. When one considers that this is treated water, fit for consumption and being paid for by taxpayers, it is totally unacceptable that it is being allowed to leak into the ground.

The Minister should require every local authority to produce a water report giving an indication of the standard of underground pipes that remain in place. He will discover that there are major differences in the quality of piping used in the various local authority areas. He will also discover that the investment in piping systems also differs because local authorities have pursued different priorities, etc. Requiring such reports would involve additional bureaucracy but it would be a positive exercise and represent money well spent.

My final point relates to how we can approach the issue of water wastage by the public. This is not really an issue in other parts of Europe where people pay for their water as they use it. However, we have made a decision to provide water for households free of charge. There is no water wastage on the part of businesses in Ireland to any great extent. Most businesses are making significant efforts, for purely financial reasons, to reduce their water wastage because they are obliged to pay for the water they use. That is not the case with households.

If we are continue to provide water for households free of charge, we must discover ways to ensure people do not take for granted the provision of water which is a costly business for the State. They must respect the fact that although water may fall from the sky free of charge, the provision of water into households comes at a cost. We must build in the mindset of the public respect for the fact that water cannot be used, freely and endlessly, without there being some repercussions. Perhaps the Minister could ask an expert group to give consideration to this matter and make recommendations in terms of improving the water efficiency of households, from both a PR and technical point of view. If we were to put in place a grant aid system to make households more water-friendly, it would be money well spent. We would actually save money, in the medium term not to mention the long term, by doing so.

The other alternative which is not politically palatable is to begin charging for the amount of water people use. Even if we were to give them a free quota of water to use each year and charge them for water used in excess of this, it would not be politically palatable. We need to be realistic. We must, therefore, take a strong and proactive approach towards informing people about the cost of providing water for their households. They do not have a clue as regards how expensive is that process. As a result, they leave their hoses on in the summer in order to promote the growth of their grass, leave taps running and fill two or three baths in one night for their children when they could simply fill one. We need to consider ways to change this mindset. It will be a slow process but I hope the Minister will initiate it.

See this speech in context