Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

The fact that the preparation of these plans will be an executive function does not mean it will not be done, as happens in most places, in close consultation with elected representatives.

I share in the tributes that have been paid to the prowess of Victorian engineers who pioneered the provision of water and sewage treatment. All such facilities need to be renewed. Tributes are also due to the engineers working during the early years of independence, who connected water supplies to so many households around the country. A fine job was done in that era, which long pre-dated the Celtic tiger.

This is one of the least politically glamorous areas of Government activity. One rarely sees Senators or Deputies rushing to their local radio stations following some announcement about investment in water or sewerage treatment. Nonetheless, such matters are extremely important to the economic and social development of the country. The resources provided for these services have tapered off somewhat since 2002, prior to which there had been a very large increase. Reference has been made to various projects that have been undertaken, including, for example, the marvellous work in Dublin Bay. I recall discussing that with the former Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey, in the early 1990s. He took great interest in it but it took ten or 12 years to reach fruition because many such projects are long-term.

I fully accept the point made by Senator Ulick Burke about Lough Derg and Galway Bay. Rome was not built in a day, of course, but these matters have to be attended to. We are beginning to turn the corner as regards the quality of our water resources. It is important to ensure there is no waste of resources. I remember that ten or 20 years ago during dry periods in Dublin we would hear constant calls to ration our water or not to undertake certain activities. This is rare in recent times, which suggests that the efficiency of water supply has improved. It could also mean that we are getting a more even supply of water from the heavens.

There is an emphasis on standards in the Bill which is important. People in a country such as ours have the impression that water is free. The provision of water certainly is not free. It is provided out of general taxation and I have no problem with that, but the Bill is right to attach penalties, if necessary, to gratuitous waste of water. Reference was made to the River Liffey. I visited the Middle East recently where the River Jordan, which one would imagine from Bible study days is a large river, was only a trickle because all the water is diverted from it. We are fortunate to have an ample and abundant supply of water.

Flooding of country roads as a result of farmers not keeping drains as well as was the case in the past is a problem. Where road flooding results from inadequate drainage or maintenance of drains, I hope the provisions of the Bill will require landowners to address the situation.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has dismissed out of hand the notion of privatisation of water services. It is a myth that matters are more efficiently done in the private sector. This is not necessarily so. If people must scramble around for profits for shareholders, this may lead to greater inefficiency. We saw some fiascos in this area in Britain a few years ago where there was inadequate investment. We see a similar situation in the railways there also where, because shareholders must be kept happy, the investment is inadequate.

Water is such an essential requirement that if it fails the Government will be held responsible. Therefore, it cannot be disposed of to private authorities. The Government will always have to ensure water is properly supplied. I welcome the Bill and the progress it represents. It is important that the Government continues to apply the necessary resources to deal with its large backlog in the provision of better water and waste treatment services. Some examples of this need have been raised in this debate.