Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail)

I wish to share time with Deputies McGuinness, Browne and McConalogue.

This Bill is an attack on rural Ireland. It inflicts profoundly unfair, discriminate charges against rural home owners, underpinned by the threat of criminality. It provides no financial assistance for necessary upgrades and it has no detail on the applicable standards. It puts forward a vague unsustainable financial model for an unknown number of inspectors undertaking an unknown number of inspections for an unknown amount of money. We fear that the Bill is the thin end of the wedge, pricing people out of rural life, confining it to those who can afford it, not those who are born and raised in the area. We will fight to defend those affected by this legislation through a series of comprehensive amendments.

There are 475,000 septic tanks in Ireland with approximately 1.5 million people serviced by them. These families are struggling in the midst of a global recession. They undertook to build a home in their communities and they paid development levies to their local authorities to fund services. They are not simply part of rural life; they are rural life. The Bill will further burden them with additional charges, the cost of upgrading their septic tanks and the threat of higher charges in the future.

The Government has defended the Bill on two grounds. The first is the ECJ ruling of October 2009 and the second is the need to protect ground water quality. The ECJ ruling found Ireland wanting in implementing the 1975 waste directive. It exempted County Cavan on the basis of the inspection system it introduced in 2004. The issue at stake is the specific process being introduced by the Government, not the need for a system to ensure water sources are kept clean and free from pollution. It is disingenuous to suggest or imply that the system put forward in the legislation was detailed in the ECJ ruling. This is not the only way forward to address the judgment.

Maintaining high quality water, free of pollution, is an essential goal of our amendments to the Bill. The Minister's commitment to the environmental cause appears to be a marriage of convenience to which he comes home whenever it suits him. He has taken the climate change Bill promised in the programme for Government and parked it indefinitely. He is getting ready to hit motorists with low emission cars with a 50% motor tax increase just for being fuel efficient. The Minister strikes me as an unlikely champion of the environment he claims his Bill is designed to protect.

The 2000 water directive has set a series of standards for Ireland to reach by 2015 but the greatest threat to our obligations in this area is not the ordinary householder living in the countryside that the Bill threatens to criminalise. The biggest factor undermining water quality is local authorities failing to live up to the necessary standards. The Minister's occasional bout of interest in the environment would be better served by concentrating on them and not the ordinary hard working families in the countryside that this legislation will affect.

Let us examine the Bill in detail. It introduces a series of fees to be paid as part of the registration and appeals process. The initial €50 fee may seem innocuous but it sets a precedent for placing additional, discriminate charges at the foot of rural home owners. The principle at stake is that home owners are being laden with charges on the basis that they live in the countryside for services that urban dwellers expect as a normal part of the State's services. Our fear is that once this precedent of a highly discriminatory charge is set, it will be the thin end of the wedge. Further fees may follow and increases justified by the same thinking that has led to this Bill may lead to many more. If rural home owners are to be singled out for a charge relating to the basic necessities of life, what is to prevent more being applied down the line? This Bill paves the way for further encroachments on the right of people to live in rural Ireland.

The Bill presents a new set of regulations, which will be supported by the threat of the commission of an offence and which will be implemented by an unknown number of private inspectors. Underpinning the additional charges and fresh obligations to be imposed is the threat of criminality. The Minister evaded this aspect by seeking refuge in semantics regarding definitions of criminality. I draw his attention to section 70C, which states that a person who contravenes the regulations outlined will commit an offence. According to this section, domestic waster water treatments "adversely affect the countryside or places of special interest". The vague nature of such demands, coupled with the wide area to which they relate, will empower inspectors with a very broad and potentially threatening remit. Despite all his evasiveness on this issue, the Minister is well aware that the people who will be affected by the legislation will be treated like criminals. To ordinary homeowners, elderly farmers or young families starting out in life, being hauled before the District Court in order to pay a fine because their septic tank adversely affected the countryside will be tantamount to being treated like common criminals. No amount of verbal gymnastics on the part of the Minister can change that.

If we consider the financial impact of upgrading septic tanks under the new system, we begin to see what will be the real costs to rural homeowners throughout the country. The Minister has not detailed the standards that will apply when inspectors arrive on people's premises. He indicated that he has received agreement from the Commission in respect of standards. However, the detail of the regulations remains unknown. The most up-to-date regulations are contained in the EPA's code of practice for 2009. The latter set out percolation areas, minimum distances between septic tanks and homes, the standard of the tanks, etc. If they were to be applied, this would give rise to a need for more wide-scale upgrades throughout the country. The standards relating to a home which was built in 1982 and which has a septic tank will diverge significantly from those set down in the 2009 guidelines. There may be severe space constraints in respect of such a house, the specified minimum distance may not be achievable and difficulties might arise in the context of the criteria relating to soil type. What are the owners of such houses expected to do?

The lack of clarity in respect of this matter reflects the fact that the Bill is entirely silent in respect of the cost to homeowners. The regulatory impact analysis relating to the Bill indicates that it is difficult to estimate the costs involved, particularly those relating to householders. The Bill, the regulatory impact analysis and the Minister are all silent with regard to how much all of what is proposed will cost.

Let us consider the Cavan model in order to obtain a sense of what will be the impact of the Bill. There has been a 25% failure rate in Cavan in respect of septic tanks, with remedial works costing an average of €2,500. However, regulatory impact analysis indicates - I draw the Minister's attention to this figure, which he queried in the Seanad, and its source - that in certain instances the costs relating to a complete upgrade may reach €17,000. This information is listed on page 9 of the analysis if the Minister wishes to see it. Depending on the standards applied, the failure rate and the level of works to be undertaken will represent a significant increase on what has occurred in Cavan since 2004. Taking the basic failure rate of 25% and the average cost of €2,500 for an upgrade in Cavan, we can at least obtain some limited sense of the overall cost to rural homeowners to which the Bill will give rise. If there is a 25% failure in respect of the 475,000 septic tanks throughout the country, then 120,000 tanks will need to be upgraded. As a result, 120,000 family homes and approximately 460,000 people will be affected.

The homeowners to whom I refer are already struggling. Imposing an additional charge of €2,500 will do little to assist the much-vaunted job creation programme which the Government likes to discuss but in respect of which it fails to act. Under this Bill - and based on the limited information provided by the Minister - some 120,000 rural homeowners will be obliged to spend an average of €2,500 on upgrades. This means that a total of €300 million will be paid out on such upgrades. A further €23.75 million will be raised by means of the registration fee. In addition, those who are of the view that they have been unfairly forced to pay thousands of euro on upgrades will be obliged to pay an appeal fee of €20. This is the real cost for ordinary homeowners with regard to what is contained in the Bill. This money will be sucked out of the rural economy and the cost will be felt in homes throughout the country. What is envisaged represents a €300 million tax on rural living.

The system of inspectors outlined in the Bill is also shrouded in secrecy. This is another reason we believe that what is proposed represents the thin end of the wedge. The Minister has stated that the inspection process will be self-financing as a result of the registration fees collected and that there will be no impact on the Exchequer. However, there is a lack of real and credible detail with regard to the funding system outlined in the Bill. If this system proves to be insufficient, will charges be increased in order to plug the gap caused by poor planning in respect of the legislation?

The Bill contains a series of costly measures which inspectors will be obliged to pursue. Comprehensive testing of sites - ranging from site visits to the taking of soil samples - may be necessary as part of a thorough examination. At a minimum, there will be a need to carry out on-site visits. The latter may often take place in rural settings where housing density is low. Inspectors will be obliged to be fully qualified and will have to pay a fee of €1,000 in order to become registered. On that basis, it is safe to assume that inspectors will expect a sufficient level of remuneration in respect of their efforts. The Minister has given no indication of the number of inspectors to be employed, nor has he outlined how many inspections they will be contracted to undertake or what will be the cost of such inspections.

The Bill makes provision for the imposition of a €50 registration charge which will cover inspectors' fees. In the context of the 475,000 septic tanks throughout the country, this will yield a once-off payment of €23.75 million, or €4.75 million per annum over five years. Will €4.75 million per annum be sufficient in the context of fully funding the wages of inspectors? Certain inspections will be less time consuming than others. A visual inspection verifying registration details will be far less arduous than undertaking soil samples and monitoring septic tanks. How will the fees relating to inspections be decided? Will the level of revenue be adequate to allow the system to be self-sustaining? Is it the case that there will be no impact on the already embattled Exchequer or on local authorities, which, from a financial point of view, are struggling?

In the Seanad the Minister indicated that he expects 90% of the work relating to this matter to be done by local authority employees rather than by the privately-contracted inspectors in respect of which the Bill makes provision. Will that not place an additional financial burden on local authorities? The initial remit of the Bill to cover tanks located near water supplies has been significantly broadened to encompass the entire countryside. Thus, inspections will be carried out across the entire State. This will heighten the demand for inspectors and lead to an increase in the costs involved. I am of the view that such costs may prove to be unmanageable and that additional charges will be levied in order to fund the system of inspections. As already stated, what is proposed represents the thin end of the wedge.

The amendments my party will be tabling will be discussed in detail on Committee Stage However, I can outline to the House that we are seeking the abolition of the registration charge; clarity in respect of the funding relating to inspections; elimination of the appeal fee; clarity in respect of the regulation of household waste water systems; clarification regarding the standard to be applied by inspectors and whether EU approval for this has been forthcoming; grant aid for maintenance costs and upgrades of at least 85%; that mandatory upgrades must be exempt from planning permissions, environmental impact assessments and environmental

screenings; there should be no requirement for extra land in order to comply with provisions of the Bill; and free annual de-sludging. The Minister has made some movement on these critical issues I hope he will continue his efforts in this regard.

The Bill is an attack on rural Ireland. It imposes a tax on living in rural areas and this is backed up by the threat of criminality. It does not contain any detail in respect of how the inspection system will be funded or on the standards that will apply. In addition, it does not provide financial assistance for those who will be obliged to upgrade. The lack of clarity in respect of the Bill and the disingenuous arguments put forward to justify its introduction have led us to fear the worst. We see this legislation for what it is, namely, a further attack on rural Ireland. It also paves the way for the introduction of additional charges in the future. We will not stand by while people are being priced out of living in the communities in which they were born and raised. Fianna Fáil will be opposing the Bill.

See this speech in context