Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I commend Deputy Joan Collins on persevering with this, giving us all an opportunity to again have a whinge about Irish Water and to bring up all our localised issues, which is where this debate always seems to go. I am guilty as charged as I will probably do the same. Before I do so, I have to acknowledge that record investment is being made in upgrading infrastructure throughout the country. The total of €1.68 billion that has been committed in budget 2023 has to be acknowledged. That is an increase of approximately €110 million. Over the next three years, an additional €4.5 billion will be put into domestic water services. That is the positive news. What we are doing well is providing extra investment.

However, as I said, my main gripe with Irish Water at present is how it prioritises that funding. We all have examples throughout the country of where it is happening well and where it is not happening so well. I listened to the Acting Chair mention Killavullen and other areas of north Cork that I am familiar with, and the travails people have to go through just to get an adequate water supply. It is baffling to me, especially when I hear of the case of Arklow.

It is a case Senator Casey is completely correct in consistently raising in our parliamentary organisation. He has detailed how Arklow got a wastewater treatment plant worth €147 million. I understand why there was demand for that because raw sewage was being pumped into the sea. Obviously, that has to be curtailed and contained. When the sums are done on it, however, that was to accommodate additional population growth of 22,500 in that area. As a result of the lack of joined-up thinking with the national planning framework and so on, under that development plan the local authority is, I think, restricted to granting 50 units per annum for the coming years. It is baffling that an investment of €147 million to provide for an extra 50 houses can be prioritised over a number of other projects in my county to which I can refer. The Acting Chairman, Deputy Sherlock, will be familiar with Carrignavar. The school there has closed and there is a brownfield site in the middle of the village. The new school is under construction, but nothing can happen with the brownfield site or the other lands that are zoned for residential development until such time as the existing treatment plant is upgraded, at an estimated cost of between €1.5 million and €2 million. As to what that would return in comparison with the likes of Arklow, with that massive €147 million investment, my local authority would deliver those units in a year or two. I think the estimated time it would take to deliver 50 units per annum to make back that €147 million is 175 years. Therefore, as for Irish Water, when we acknowledge that record investment we need also to acknowledge that sometimes the prioritisation of it is questionable.

I will mention two or three other issues. Somebody mentioned group water schemes earlier. That issue affects many of us in rural areas. Very few people are talking about the additional costs of electricity and keeping those plants running. Whatever about the fact that they are functioning correctly and appropriately and the replacement of filters and so on, their running costs have far exceeded the grants those communities get. That needs to be looked at with the Minister for Finance. Perhaps some form of grant can be provided.

Deputy Flaherty mentioned the issue of connection costs and the delays in connections. Any Deputy involved with a young family, in particular one building their first home, will testify to the fact that the waiting times are delaying planning applications and holding up the whole process, not to mention the costs of connections. I know that from experience because my wife and I are looking at possibly building our first home in the next few years and I have already had people out to survey the costs of all these things. The cost of a simple water connection now is astronomical compared with what it was a few years ago.

The issue of septic tanks is also one we come across regularly, particularly in rural areas. We operate on the basis of EPA guidelines, and I get why those guidelines are in place. They are important. The topography of a site is important. The issue of percolation needs to be assessed. I find it very difficult, however, when I go onto a rural site and something historic, such as a wastewater treatment plant or a septic tank, on the site might not fall within the remit of the EPA guidelines. It is probably an historic thing that was built many years ago and does not tie in with the regulations. However, when one proposes the construction of a new biocycle unit, the EPA guidelines are stringently enforced, irrespective of the positive impact the replacement of the septic tank would have. We need to look at that if we are serious about helping people build their first one-off house.

I do not have time to mention the last issue I wished to raise but I might table it as a Topical Issue matter.

See this speech in context