Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)

I wish to share time with Deputies McHugh and Breen. If they do not turn up, however, I will use their time.

I am not the environment spokesman for my party, even though there are a number of environmental issues in my constituency. I read recently about environmental problems in the Minister's constituency. A study was carried out in Trinity College which indicated that great amounts of rubbish could eventually seep into the water system in Wicklow and on to its roads. The study suggested a refundable deposit on bottles and cans and I would like the Minister to consider that again.

On a couple of occasions during the past two years I have been on holidays in the south of Spain or the south of France to get a little sunshine outside this dreary House. When sunning oneself there, one can get a litre of water for about 30 cent in any shop. On returning to Ireland and finding a litre of water costing closer to €1, I thought this was because we had some form of water conservation tax to encourage people to use it sparingly. Unfortunately, that is not so. It is just another example of rip-off Ireland, where a bottle of still water in a pub costs more than €2 even though we are discouraging drink driving and urging people not to overdo things. Nevertheless, soft drinks and water, in particular, cost a fortune.

There are no measures to encourage water conservation here. The Bill is welcome in one context but my party will vote against it because although it is designed to modernise and manage water supply and distribution systems it does not emphasise any aspect of conservation or sustainability or — most importantly — water quality. The Bill would have to be amended before the Green Party could support it.

Our position on water has been clear for many years. I will give an example from my constituency. A couple of years ago, Lucan was flooded by heavy rainfall. A number of housing estates were seriously flooded when the river burst its banks in the village. There were rumours at the time that the new estates did not have proper drainage systems in place. The bottom line was that a housing estate was built on a flood plain and despite warnings the Adamstown strategic development zone was given the go-ahead without an environmental impact statement. I hope the European Commission might yet make a decision on that. We do not know exactly what the impact will be of building homes on flood plains in the Adamstown strategic development zone.

Throughout many urban areas, not merely in my constituency, flooding is on the increase. Some of it is due to increased rainfall and in that context I am disappointed that so far my colleague Deputy Eamon Ryan has not had a chance to raise the issue of climate change in a meaningful debate which might attract widespread media coverage. Rainfall will continue to increase because of climate change. The increase will not be alarming but unless we manage our urban areas properly we will have more and more localised flooding. There is an opportunity for this Bill to include measures to ensure that the impact of rainfall in built-up areas is minimised. Roofs, for example, could have storage areas to prevent rainwater from flooding streets. That water could then be used in washing machines, to wash dishes and in showers. This is the sort of forward thinking needed for the 21st century and which with regard to building regulations and in terms of amending this Bill could have far-reaching impact. It could not happen overnight. Water can be a dangerous resource in that it can cause flooding and a very scarce resource in the sense that we do not have a great deal of clean, drinkable water in the country. That aspect must be addressed.

It is a pity Deputy Jim Higgins is not present because his election to the Dáil in 1997 resulted from his fantastic by-election showing in 1996 on the water charges issue. I agree with him that a charge on water like a charge on refuse collection, is an unjust double tax. However, where my party disagrees with regard to that is that a measure must be introduced to ensure proper recycling or conservation of water, so we support for example tags on bins. In my constituency people are now getting free tags by means of waivers or they pay €6 per tag, which encourages people to use their green bins. Those bins should be collected more frequently but at least they are being used.

The Green Party supports measures which encourage conservation. In that context, water metering with the introduction of a water charge down the line could be quite welcome, not in the unfair and unjust tax manner to which Deputy Jim Higgins has alluded over the years but in a proper, sane, sustainable manner whereby eventually domestic homes are metered along with industries, but with people also given a generous free quota of water per household or per user. The details could be worked out. In that way people will know that water is a scarce resource but also a human right to be utilised to a certain extent. During a hot summer drought, however, people should not be allowed to use lawn sprinklers without charge. This is where proper water metering would come in. People who use water normally over the year would pay nothing but if they were to exceed their water quota they would pay dearly for this scarce resource.

That is the sort of water management measure needed. It would work if it were seen as an equitable measure rather than as an unfair flat rate tax. If it is shown to have an impact on people's income, some other form of refundable tax credit could be introduced to redress any loss people might incur. If one has to pay for something, one will conserve it: that message must go out in terms of all forms of waste, though people must still be allowed a free quota of water.

Part 3 of this Bill could have recognised measures dealing with the water supply rather than with the end demand for water. Currently one is talking of putting in place measures to ensure that enough water comes out at the end, but with regard to water coming in, as I alluded to with regard to Adamstown, one could have a collection depot on top of a roof; one could have legislation making low-flush toilets compulsory in any new homes; showers might have to have a linked rainwater option, possibly involving tax incentives rather than penalties; and one could have taps which control water flow. All these measures could have been included in the Bill but unfortunately were not.

My colleague Deputy Cuffe said that water conservation measures which looked at leaks and wastage in Dublin reduced leaks from two fifths of the original figure down to less than a third. However, that means nearly one in every three litres of water is still being wasted in the Dublin water supply, which is scandalous. Because we are seen as a country with abundant rainfall, the issue of water as a resource is not taken seriously, yet looking at the huge housing developments in the greater Dublin area it will be very difficult to supply all the people living there in the coming years without doing something like diverting water from the Shannon or elsewhere. That is why we must put more energy and investment into reducing the leaks and overhauling the pipework system over time.

I mentioned domestic usage and medium-term measures. In the shorter term there are opportunities to implement water metering earlier for commercial usage. That is being introduced to some extent but the Green Party believes every commercial entity should have to pay. In terms of encouraging conservation, if employers' PRSI were correspondingly reduced, for example, that would be a revenue-neutral effort but would encourage job creation and discourage pollution. These are the sort of policies the Green Party has been discussing for years. During successive elections we have been accused of being "loony Greens" or "for the birds" but the ESRI, for example, has come round to our way of thinking in terms of measures which promote employment and penalise pollution.

I hope the Minister will take all this on board in progressing the Bill. It is not even called a sustainable Bill and should be so renamed and made a sustainable Bill by means of amendments.

I fear that I will not be able to talk for that long. There are only one or two other things I would like to say on this Bill. Having an ethos of conservation and emphasising efficiency would be one way to make it workable and save the Government a great deal of money in the long term. Rather than facilitating end demand, if we could reduce water wastage and pollution at source, both domestically and industrially, we would have a more efficient, cheaper and healthier water system.

The last area to which I refer is water quality, which is not included in the Bill. However, the health of the drinker — or consumer, if one will — is crucial. Water quality has declined over many years. Many people would say that tap water is safe to drink, even in Amsterdam or London, where it is recycled seven times. However, is the water as good as it might be? In rural areas, there are opportunities to provide tax incentives to people who can separate and deal with sewage on their own land. I am not talking about septic tanks but disposal on the ground itself through planting and so on. There are also ways of using rainwater in both rural and urban settings.

How one treats water must be changed in policy terms. Rather than adding chemicals, we must minimise infection. I speak of the enforcement of the nitrates directive, for example. There are ways and means of providing income for farmers, including those my colleague, Councillor Mary White, has pointed out. The Carlow sugar beet factory could easily be transformed into a factory producing biofuel. There are ways of raising farm incomes that would outweigh any small negative impact caused by enforcing the nitrates directive. Another issue is rural septic tanks; legislation could be passed to eliminate them ultimately.

Regarding urban water, separation techniques are important. We are talking about dual piping in new buildings, with pure water used in drinking and "grey" or "brown" water in the shower and washing machine. I called for the use of roof rain, and I do not believe the householder should have to invest in installing such systems after the event, except where there are existing houses. In that context, grants should be made available for the installation of dual piping systems. If under the Bill that was mandatory for new dwellings, it would be a great step forward.

On behalf of my colleague, Deputy Gormley, I reiterate the fluoridation issue. I have previously raised it in the House on his behalf when he was not available. There is an opportunity to remove fluoride from the water. There has been ongoing debate on whether it is necessary, and the jury is out, but the precautionary principle should be applied when it comes to how we treat our water system. I will not enter into the health debate, since experts on both sides engage in mud-slinging. From having observed it, I believe that the evidence is inconclusive. If that is so, it is not good enough, and we should remove fluoride from drinking water, since enough chemicals are already being added to it.

Another emphasis may sound facetious in the context of this debate, but perhaps the Minister might talk to his colleagues and try to ensure that still and sparkling water in pubs is subsidised or that publicans are at least forced to make it affordable. That issue is something of a gripe on my part.

We have no strategy on wetlands, which play a substantial role in the water cycle, particularly in rural areas, and they should also be included in this Bill.

See this speech in context