Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. I have listened with great interest to what colleagues have said about this amendment because water safety and quality are matters of great concern. Some worrying and concerning points were made by colleagues about water quality in Connemara and Tralee and more generally by Senator Norris when he mentioned tainted water supplies. We are all very conscious of water safety and it has been a huge issue in many parts of the country over many years.

As I said on Second Stage, the quest for water safety should make us all welcome a change in how we deliver water services. Clearly, we have under-invested in the water supply for years which has left water quality in many areas in a very poor and in some cases appalling condition. The under-investment in water has been a feature of the current system and happened where there was a multitude of local authorities in charge of water services generally. One national public utility is a hugely positive development because it will ensure we have a better level of water quality.

Given that is the context of the amendment, and for the concerns behind the amendment which are ones we all share, we need to look at what is the appropriate way to deal with this issue under the auspices of the national public utility that is Irish Water. All of us would agree that the public must be notified where there are issues with water quality.

I understand the HSE has a statutory function in this regard, as the proposer of the amendment has pointed out. One would anticipate that Irish Water will be also working with the HSE when there are issues of water safety or quality in any area. I am not sure this amendment is necessary and I am also concerned that its provisions may lead to function creep for an entity which is hugely important. Most speakers have welcomed the principle and the concept behind section 7 of the Bill. The idea of a Public Water Forum or customer consultative forum was an important element of the measures announced on 16 November last in response to public concerns about the way Irish Water was being governed. The aforementioned forum is hugely important and its functions are set out very clearly in subsection (5) of the Bill. This amendment seeks to amend subsection (5) to insert a new provision, (5) (g), to recommend that Irish Water would issue public health notices. It seems to me that the forum already has very clearly designated functions. Subsection (5) (b) provides that the forum shall "provide Irish Water with comments and suggestions in relation to the performance by Irish Water of its functions". If there are concerns among members of the forum about water safety in a particular area or concerns that Irish Water and the HSE are not working together in an adequate fashion to ensure customer safety, then subsection (5) (b) provides sufficient powers and authority to the forum to do what the Senators are seeking with their amendment.

We all appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment proposed but I would suggest that it is an unnecessary amendment. We must be careful not to suggest that the customer consultative forum should trespass on statutory functions around public health and safety. That said, the forum would already have the power to provide Irish Water with comments and suggestions on the adequacy of the performance by Irish Water of functions in respect of water safety and for that reason I do not think this amendment needs to be put to the House - perhaps the Senators will withdraw it. Their objective is something with which we all agree in principle but I would argue that it may not be appropriate to provide for this in statutory format in a section that deals with the establishment of a customer consultative forum. Section 7 already provides the forum with quite extensive and specific powers in terms of its function, namely to represent customers of Irish Water.