Mary Henry (Independent)

It is nice to be in agreement with the Minister in respect of several parts of the Progressive Democrats' motion, which parts I have also rejected. I was particularly interested in his comments on the national authority for water and sewerage services. When I became a Member of this House almost 14 years ago, the number of private water schemes polluted by e.coli amounted to 25%. I believe this has decreased to 22% after staggering sums of money were spent on the problem.

Nobody seems to take responsibility for any of these issues. A very large proportion of the pollution in some private water schemes is due to septic tanks. Between these and the pollution arising from the spreading of animal faeces all over the country, it is a miracle we do not have the most extraordinary outbreaks of infection. It was brought to my attention today that there is a notice in an area in the west stating there has been no water for a number of months and that it is being delivered by tanker. This is ridiculous in this day and age. Not only has there been a problem with e.coli in private water supplies but there has also been cryptosporidium, a very serious parasite. No attention seems to be paid to how it affects public health.

I will not outline the position on private wells because there seems to be no attempt to determine the quality of the water therein or its effect on public health. During my professional life, particularly when I was training, I was always taught about problems with water supplies. One of the most important points we had to take on board was that there was a need to have proper water supplies, particularly in rural areas. I remember endemic typhoid in parts of this country. It is dreadful to think, so many years later, that so many private water supplies are still polluted.

Given that we are referring to one-off rural housing, the most important matter I would like to address concerns septic tanks. The regulations in this regard seem to be totally out of date. While there seem to be regulations for the construction industry concerning virtually every material it uses, be it associated with fire safety, electricity or gas, there is a very weak code of practice concerning the materials used for septic tanks. At present, they fall under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act or consumer laws dating from 1991. Much legislation has been passed since then and it surely should have been applied to septic tanks, which are incredibly important parts of buildings.

There are no specifications on the required performance of septic tanks, including in respect of discharge therefrom, on the required quality of the soil after the effluent has passed through it, on the durability of the tanks, on the filter period, or on essential maintenance, including the frequency of desludging. I believed we had introduced a measure some years ago that septic tanks had to be desludged every two years. I gather this has fallen into abeyance. I also believe those who desludged tanks had to have expertise but I have been told this is no longer the case. These are two very serious matters because the ponding of sewage effluent and pollution of the ground infects surface water and drinking water. It has been put to me that this is happening because the pump-outs are too costly. What could be more costly than allowing people's health to be affected? We cannot continue to proceed in such a ridiculous manner. We have to make a huge effort to change the situation. We need proper certification of the products which are used in the building of septic tanks. We should also provide for proper certification of those who do the desludging. They should have to have licences or something like that so that people cannot decide to do something about the place every few years. We need to put in place such safety features because it is ridiculous that we are facing circumstances of this nature, having invested significant structural funds in these areas.

I gather that the only way to check how effectively a septic tank is working is to examine the flow in and out of the tank. I am not aware of anyone in the country who does that, but perhaps the Minister has better information than me. I do not think it is right that the health of consumers who have paid for the installation of septic tanks should be endangered as a result of our failure to ensure those tanks are adequate. Many people have paid for tanks which are far too small for the amount of waste that can be expected to go through them. The Minister is aware that we have a much broader idea of what passes through municipal sewerage schemes than we have of what passes through tanks which serve single houses. We do not know how many people live in each house, what their cooking methods are, whether they use jacuzzis, how much detergent they use and what they are doing about the waste water arrangements in the house. We should take more responsibility for such matters. I am sorry to appear so cross about this matter but I thought we had solved many of these problems years ago. When I think about the amount of money that has been spent, I feel a significant proportion of it must have been wasted.

I do not think the health implications of private wells have been addressed anywhere. We are aware of the various issues pertaining to private water schemes. I do not think enough interest has been taken in the human effects of the nitrates directive. We know that high nitrate levels in waters are important for pregnant women, babies, children and the adult population. We are not in a position to say that changes in nitrate levels do not have serious consequences for public health. It is all very well to talk about building houses in nice rural settings — such houses can be very charming — but we have to consider the public health implications of what we are doing. I do not think they have been addressed sufficiently.