Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I welcome this Bill in so far as it consolidates previous legislation in this area. The consolidation of the 17 previous Acts will make the legislation easier for people to use.

We need to discuss and get answers to certain issues before we pass the Bill. The Minister's speech stated that section 70 provides that additional obligations will be placed on occupiers and owners to maintain septic tanks, referred to as treatment systems, in such condition as is necessary to avoid nuisance or risk to human health or the environment. Many people throughout the country who have bought second hand houses have septic tanks which do not function properly. The Minister should make a grant available to people in such circumstances to upgrade their septic tanks and make them more efficient. He should do this in the interest of the environment. This assistance would be very welcome.

The Minister stated that he intends that water services authorities will use their licensing powers in a proactive manner to support and nurture the development of best practice throughout the group water services scheme sector. What is best practice? Some time ago during an Adjournment debate on an issue raised by me the Minister also spoke about best practice. What is best practice with regard to water services?

The Minister and the Government have decided to place all water services on a design-build-operate or public private partnership basis. Is that best practice? Do we know that a move away from the conventional system is the best way to go? The Minister has not explained best practice to us although he alludes to it and infers it is the way of design-build-operate schemes or public private partnerships.

Senator Brady mentioned the new system at Ringsend which I welcome. I would like the Minister of State in his summing up, or the Minister on Committee Stage, to elaborate on the Ringsend operation. How is it working, how is it financed and how will it be financed over the next 20 years? Part of it operates under a design-build-operate scheme. I understand that this scheme and the polluter pays system operate on the basis that the business community will pay two charges. It will pay both the capital and the running charge. If this is the case, there are huge consequences for business communities throughout the country. This affects not only business communities, but also farmers who operate from group water schemes.

The Government has mentioned best practice but there is only one practice. The Government has designed the practice in such a way that the only way for a group water scheme to go ahead is under a design-build-operate scheme. It offers 110% of a grant for a design-build-operate scheme, but only 80% for a conventional system. No group or trustees of a group will go down the road of a partly funded scheme where they must raise 20% of the cost from local contributions when they can get 110% under a design-build-operate scheme.

These schemes are designed to make money for the private contractor or operator and this practice will remove any influence or say a local authority member might have in the matter. Once a group enters a contract for 20 or 25 years with a design-build-operate entity the local authority members will have no say. The local authority's only involvement in the scheme will be the bill it receives from the operator of the scheme at the end of the financial year. The county manager will take that bill and, based on the non-domestic element of it, spread the charge among the business and farming community who will have to pay the piper. Annual inflation will also be a built-in element of the bills over the length of the contract.

I hope that before Committee Stage the Minister will be able to explain to us how the Ringsend scheme is working. I do not know of any other scheme which is operating efficiently under the design-build-operate public private partnership and the polluter pays system. I would like to have an answer before this Bill is passed as the legislation will have ferocious consequences for businesses and factories, particularly pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities which use a great deal of water. Many factories are under pressure from countries in Europe and elsewhere. If we impose hefty penalties on them for water and sewerage schemes, we will drive more and more employers out of Ireland.

I would like the Minister of State to explain in his summing up how best practice will work. The Government has taken great pains and performed great publicity stunts to communicate that it is spending €5.9 billion on the remainder of the national development plan for water and sewerage services. The Government says the majority of schemes will be design-build-operate public private partnerships. If one asks the Minister what will be the consequences for businesses, farmers and the public, one receives no reply. Requests fall on a deaf ear. I would like some answers. The Ringsend plant appears to be what most people have been talking about. As it is up and running, surely we should know what are its consequences. One must bear in mind, of course, that Dublin City Council probably has the most buoyant rate base in the country. It must have a huge advantage from a rates point of view. I am sure the Minister of State will elaborate on this.

I welcome the consolidation of the previous Acts. However, the Bill paves the way for the privatisation of water and sewerage services. There will be very few people who have the experience and expertise to construct design-build-operate schemes under public private partnerships. There will be one, two or three contractors who will have among them a monopoly on schemes, and this is the sense in which there will be privatisation in water and sewerage services. I am not in favour of design, build and operate schemes. While the design and build could be private, it would be a regressive step to take the operation of schemes from local authorities. I ask the Minister to consider removing the operational end from the private sector. There is a great deal of expertise in local authorities. Each local authority should constitute the expert group in each water service area. Not only can local authorities do the job, but through local authority members, the public would be able to have their say. If we go down the other route, they will have no say. I welcome the Bill.