John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)

I join Deputy Niall Collins in opposing the Bill. None of us disagrees with the introduction of standards, particularly in this area and in the context of protecting the environment and our water sources. However, this legislation is gold-plated in nature and it works against the interests of citizens. There are other simpler ways, which were introduced in other jurisdictions, that could be applied here and that could have the same benefit and achieve the same goals that the Minister seeks to achieve. I believe that this legislation should not be taken now. We should look at other possibilities and other ways of doing this business.

I compare this Bill to another piece of legislation introduced by the previous Government, the climate change Bill. That, too, was gold-plated. It was set out to suit Europe, not to deal with the issues at home and achieve the same goals. It is also similar to the legislation governing NERA. The consequences of that legislation were inspectors terrorising businesses up and down the country. At one stage, that had to be stopped and they had to be redirected in terms of their ambitions.

What I see lacking in this legislation is the criteria set out for each householder who has a septic tank, what he or she needs to comply with, what the standards are and what will happen to him or her during the course of these inspections. The householder is a partner in our attempt to protect water sources, etc.

Another important point which is not developed in the Bill relates to the powers of the inspectors so that the citizen would know exactly what to expect. The Minister said that when an inspector visits, he or she must have permission to come on-site, but the inspector also has the power to enter the site and it is that power that will be introduced to the householder on the day. It is that power that must be challenged. When a citizen of the State decides to object to or question the power of any inspector in the State, we know the consequences. Indeed, the Minister and I are aware of what happened in our constituency to Mr. Donal Norris with the NRA and other examples can be called upon to prove that point as the NRA set about its business in the State.

If we look at what else happened in terms of looking after the quality of water, we need go no further than Kilkenny and the Purcellsinch plant. For years, that plant polluted the River Nore and in spite of some investment in the plant, it remained a source of problems in the area in which it was located. It was the residents of that area who paid a serious penalty because the EPA, as an arm of the State, would not take the appropriate action against Kilkenny County Council. The opposite is the case when the State is dealing with citizens or individuals, where it is well able to flex its muscle. That is the reason I have concerns about how individuals will cope with this serious problem. It may work out the way the Minister has described. It may be that there will be a small number of people affected by this, but let us take the ones who are affected and examine what will happen.

They could be those who are marginalised with very little income. They could be the elderly in a rural community who could have a visit from an inspector, which causes its own level of concern for them, and they may then need to carry out certain works on-site to ensure that they comply with whatever unknown standard the inspector lays down. Then there is the cost involved in that, but the State does not reach out to help them with it. It does not try to assist them in any way. Assistance should be the approach in the context of this Bill. They are partners in what the Minister is trying to achieve. They have not been consulted, by and large, and the Minister is imposing this legislation on them. If we were to consult them, they might say that they would comply and that they would work with the inspectors, given time, given an understanding of what is required of them and given some sort of financial assistance to reach the point where they can put in place what is required. I doubt if many of them are deliberately not complying with regulation of the treatment of effluent from their own sites.

Another matter that concerns me - the Minister, Deputy Hogan, has been a practical practising politician at local level for a long time - is when the State suggests that it envisages it will not cost more than €50 or that such and such might happen. The reality with this type of legislation is that, should it be passed and should the Minister, Deputy Hogan, move to a different Department, it is then left to the officials to interpret what the Minister said. What the Minister is saying may be good and positive, and I would agree with some of it.

See this speech in context