Seanad debates

Wednesday, 16 June 2004

Water Services Bill 2003: Committee Stage.

 

11:00 am

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)

I will deal with the substantive amendment to section 49 under amendment No. 87 first. Amendment No. 87 replaces the existing section 49 and expands the scope of its application to include service connections in addition to waterworks and waste waterworks as before. In addition, for the avoidance of doubt, the obligation on third parties to provide relevant information to the water services authority is now applied also to the update of any records under subsection (2). Additional powers are also introduced to enable a water services authority to provide specified records to be provided to it for the purposes of this section, and a new offence provision is provided for in relation to failure to provide the requisite information.

The entire section as revised is reproduced as one amendment to facilitate a clearer understanding of the effects of the various changes to the original text. The amendment applies the mapping obligations under section 49 additionally to service connections in order to ensure, for example, that pipe networks within industrial and housing estates are adequately mapped. This was always the intention of this subsection. However, in the light of the revised definition of waterworks and waste waterworks under section 2, the mapping obligation in accordance with the original wording would now apply to such pipes in the charge of a water services provider. Where pipes had not been taken in charge by the water services authority, they would not have been subject to this section. The revised wording closes the gap.

Two additional subsections have also been added. Subsection (5), to facilitate enforcement, enables a water services authority to instruct a person who is in charge of relevant pipes to keep relevant records and to provide it with relevant dates and information within a specified period. Subsection (6) provides that it is an offence not to comply with a notice under subsection (5). Failure by a person to provide information under subsection (1) in the first place will also be an offence. Thus it is envisaged that there will be an onus on third parties in the first instance to provide information to water services authorities whenever relevant works are being undertaken. For the information of the House, subsections (3) and (4) remain as before. Subsection (3) ensures that records kept will be open to the public during regular office house. Subsection (4) enables the Minister to make regulations specifying the types of information to be kept by the water services authority.

Amendment No. 25 is a technical amendment to include reference to the offences under subsection (6) of the new subsection in the general offences provision in subsection (8)(1). On amendment No. 88 in the name of Senator Bannon, it would not be practical to impose a six-week deadline on a water services authority to bring all maps of works up to date at the end of a job. The Minister has been resisting pressure from water services authorities to extend the period beyond the six months which is currently proposed. Six months is considered to be the minimum time needed to produce final "as constructed" drawings recording the precise finished details of pipe layouts. The job of producing and checking drawings could not possibly be done any sooner and could not possibly be done within a period of six weeks as suggested in Senator Bannon's amendment. We all know from experience of dealing with planning issues that planning permission is granted on the basis of plans submitted but that in a number of cases amended plans must be provided to the authority which reflect the final construction. While they may not be important at the time or for the next few years, time passes, and how many of us could say where the stopcocks in our houses or in any housing scheme are located? It is, therefore, important that this be recorded and sufficient time given to the providers to submit any changes there may be. I ask Senator Bannon to reflect on this and to take into account that the Department is, perhaps justifiably, resisting pressure for a period longer than six months. We feel this is a good compromise.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.