Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)

I thank Senators for their welcome contributions to this Second Stage debate. As the Minister, Deputy Cullen, said, this is a landmark Bill. It represents another milestone in the ongoing roll out of the Government's regulatory reform agenda. The Minister pointed out that some of the legislation in this area dates back to 1847 and famine times. The need to update it is obvious. For the first time in over a century, this legislation brings together all relevant provisions relating to the management and delivery of water services in one, updated Bill. A detailed, modern body of legislation on water resources protection and environmental protection generally is already in place to facilitate the sustainable management of the State's water resources. The Bill before the House represents another link in the chain. It fits neatly into the equation and will complement the other codes in force by providing for the efficient and effective management of resources in future.

The Water Services Bill 2003 is, in essence, a utilities Bill. As with gas or electricity, its focus is on the effective management of the resource and efficient delivery of services. On one hand, the legislation represents a technical exercise through which to tidy up and modernise the existing code of water services legislation to make it more accessible and consistent while on the other, it introduces a much needed integrated management framework for the planning, development and supervision of water services.

A number of points were raised by Senators, some of whom suspect that the Bill is an attempt to introduce charges. I can only stress that the legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with the reintroduction of charges for domestic users. As before, businesses will bear the cost of providing the water they use, which is only right and proper. Another Senator mentioned metering. Metering has two purposes — it is a fair way to charge the commercial user and it is necessary to safeguard resources and trace leaks. We all agree that better management of this scarce resource is essential. There is no provision in the Bill to meter households with a view to charging them. That is not what we are about. If there are meters in the system, they are there to protect and safeguard water resources. I was a member of Dublin City Council a number of years ago and I am aware that a huge amount of money has been spent to prevent the wasting of water. I am sure the same is true around the country, particularly in old, urban areas where the infrastructure and the pipe system may be 100 to 200 years old. There is no point producing water at enormous expense if half of it is being wasted and failing to turn up in taps.

Senator Dardis mentioned wider environmental concerns. He felt there was a need to integrate water services into wider environmental structures. This Bill is rightly about water services and it contributes to tackling wider environmental problems. Through our implementation of the EU framework directive on water, we are dealing with wider water resource issues. I envisage that at a later stage we may need to carry out a similar consolidation and modernisation exercise on water resources legislation.

Fluoridation was also mentioned. I am aware of the concerns people have about this matter, which has been an issue for many years. Fluoridation is fundamentally the responsibility of the Minister for Health and Children and it is not addressed in the Water Services Bill at all. It was a raging issue in Dublin approximately 30 years ago when fluoride was introduced into the water supply. An expert group reported to the Minister some months ago and recommended its continued use. The argument continues with experts on both sides. I will not pretend to be an expert, but there is no doubt that where there is no fluoridation of water, people's teeth are in an extremely poor state.

The state of dental health is extremely bad. Fluoride in the water supply is of significant benefit to the dental health of the country. A Senator asked whether a private operator providing water services infrastructure under the development levies would be entitled to a refund or compensation if the service was taken under the control of the local authority. The Bill does not provide for that situation. It may depend on the circumstances of a case. I presume it would be a matter for agreement between the parties at a local level. The Bill is neutral on this matter.

Privatisation of water services is not being considered. Any involvement by the private sector other than in the provision of group water services schemes will be as appointed agents of a local authority or water services authority through a public private partnership arrangement. Public private partnerships will operate either on the basis of a contract between the water services authority and a private operator for the provision of service or as a joint water services authority-private sector arrangement providing the service. In either case, the water services authority, which probably will be the local authority, will retain overall responsibility for conformity with statutory requirements which it will exercise through the relevant contracts or legal agreements. I suggest that such concerns are not well founded.

On the question of design-build-operate being best practice, it is regarded as the best method of operation. It produces more cost effective solutions. The plants built under this system, such as Ringsend, have been built within budget and on schedule. Best practice in any planned operation is where it can be delivered in accordance with the tender and on time. There have been too many instances where infrastructure was provided but the cost estimates and time schedule went out the window.

Non-domestic users will pay only those costs which result from their use of water services. There will be a periodic contract so that if the local authority is not satisfied with the contract, it can be cancelled. The local authority or the water services authority will negotiate the contract and if a party does not perform and does not provide a good competitive service, it will not be renewed. The development of design-build-operate projects will create competition among the operators. We are not writing a blank cheque by using these DBO schemes. They will be operated to a specification and a close eye will be maintained on the costs.

A question was asked about the Government's approach to problems with water quality. In November 2002, the European Court of Justice held that Ireland failed to fully implement the EU directive concerning the quality of water intended for human consumption. We are responding to this judgment by continuing and intensifying numerous measures to strengthen the delivery, management and supervision of water services. Measures taken to tackle and resolve deficiencies in the water supply include significant and record investment under the national development plan, the water services investment programme and the rural water programme. There will be utilisation of the Environmental Protection Agency reports to target investment; preparation of rural water strategic plans for all counties and a national source monitoring programme for the approximately 750 group schemes using a private source and serving 50 persons or more. There will be 100% grants for treatment and disinfection equipment for group schemes. New treatment technologies will be piloted and DBO contracts will be issued for the group schemes sector.

Senator McCarthy asked whether water services strategic planning could become an executive function. They are in effect management and operational plans rather than policy plans per se. Their primary role is to outline the situation in each water services authority functional area regarding the demand for water services and the proposed level of response to that demand. The water services strategic planning process will be based on a partnership between the Department and each water services authority to ensure that national and local water services agendas are fully synchronised. The Minister will have the final say in what goes into a plan.

Some Senators expressed their ongoing concerns that this legislation will take powers from local authorities and councillors. That is not the case. I have been a member of a local authority for many years and I know councillors are protective of their own patch. I fully support the work of councillors. There is nothing in this Bill which can be interpreted as taking power away, rather it is combining legislative measures and updating what needs to be updated.

Many of the provisions of the Bill are technical in nature. It is essential that the Bill is adequately proofed by the practitioners who will be charged with its implementation. Arising from this process and when the legislation returns to the House on Committee Stage, the Minister will present some proposals and technical amendments to the Bill. The significant added value the House can bring to the Bill is acknowledged and welcomed. Many of us have served at local authority level and know the good work that has been done there over the years. The Minister will be happy to consider any amendments which Senators may wish to bring forward on Committee Stage. He wishes to approach future debates in a spirit of openness and accepts that discussions with local authorities may highlight a need for amendments. If there are any other ideas or suggestions, he will openly welcome them.

I thank the House for its consideration of the matter.