Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If amendment No. 75 is agreed, amendment No. 76 cannot be moved as it is an alternative.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 75 replaces the existing section 43 with an expanded version incorporating drains and distribution systems in addition to service connections and also providing for taking in charge such connections. It arises in the light of the revised definitions of "drain", "distribution system" and "service connection" in section 2. The purpose of expanding the scope of the existing provision to provide for its application to drains and distribution systems is to avoid the frustration of the section's application in particular instances, for example, with complex piping layouts in some industrial estates where there might be some doubt about whether a specific pipe comes under the legal definition of a service connection as distinct from a drain or distribution system. Existing powers to take in charge sewers, water mains or drains under section 180 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 apply only in the context of housing estate development and are for the purpose of compelling a planning authority to take in charge sewers, water mains, drains, roads and other open spaces when requested by the majority of relevant qualified electors. Section 43 of this Bill, as amended, will not affect the application of those provisions.

Subsection (13) enables a water services authority to take such pipes in charge of its own volition and will, therefore, complement the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2000. In addition, it enables a water services authority, at its discretion, to take in charge any drain, distribution system or service connection, for example, on an industrial estate. Provision is included for appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction regarding a proposal by a water services authority to take in charge a connection to ensure that the rights of all parties involved are protected. However, it is anticipated that in many instances use of such powers will be at the prior request of the occupant, for example, where a householder agrees with the water services authority to take in charge a service connection for the purpose of its subsequent renewal and maintenance.

I understand we are taking amendments Nos. 75 and 76 together. Perhaps I might give my view regarding amendment No. 76.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Certainly.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Bannon is correct in his observation that the original wording of subsection (3), while providing some examples of the purpose for which the obligation to keep pipes in good order and repair should apply, failed to make reference to water conservation. We have re-examined that provision in the course of the overall review of the section and, on reflection, it is considered best to make the obligation absolute in the first instance. Any attempt to list the purposes for which the obligation to keep the pipes in good order and repair applies only renders the provision vulnerable to being undermined in its intent by claims that some slightly different circumstances apply in a given instance. The revised subsection (3) as set out in the Government amendment accordingly provides that those responsible for the repair and renewal of a connection have an absolute obligation in that regard. In those circumstances, I ask Senator Bannon to agree to the revised approach proposed. It is consequently a matter for him to withdraw the amendment. We have taken his views into consideration and incorporated them.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am a little confused by the Minister's reply. For a moment I thought he was taking the amendment on board regarding the conservation of water, which should be in subsections (3) and (4). Regarding amendment No. 75, the Minister referred to the water services authority, as he proposes to call the new body. It will be cut off from the local authority in the event of the privatisation of the water supply and its management in future years. This issue concerns me greatly because it appears to be a lever with which to privatise the entire water supply. We are going in the same direction as the UK in this matter. Instead of thrashing the issues out properly at an earlier Stage, the Minister of State is now presenting a significant number of Government amendments, which concerns me greatly. It is an attempt to pull the wool over our eyes and those of the public in terms of the privatisation of the water supply throughout the country. The manner and approach of the Government in attempting to achieve that end will concern the public. The Minister of State is trying to lay the groundwork for privatisation within the next few years.

Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am concerned by Senator Bannon's comments on privatisation as it is not my understanding. My constituency has one of the greatest numbers of group and other water schemes in the country. There are many EU regulations regarding water quality and the feedback indicates the EU is very insistent that local authorities provide water to group water schemes. We are moving away from the idea of small private schemes which use perhaps a river or a well as a source and it is wrong to contend we are now on a privatisation route. More local authorities are taking over group water schemes which is good because the trustees of these schemes cannot go on forever, nor would they wish to. The Minister of State's amendment stipulates that local authorities are responsible for the maintenance, renewal and upkeep of water schemes, which I welcome. I thank the Minister of State for his definition of what we mean by a "connection" and for the other definitions he has included in his amendment.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Bannon is correct that I originally indicated my acceptance of amendment No. 76 but my amendment No. 75 offers an alternative approach to achieve the same purpose.

Regarding privatisation, the water services authority is not a new body, rather it is a new name for the existing sanitary authorities. I had expected some Members to allude to privatisation, as was the case during the previous debate, but nothing in this Bill paves the way for privatisation. I am glad to have the opportunity to confirm the Government's position that the privatisation of water services is not contemplated. Those involved in the provision of water to rural areas through what we traditionally know as the group water schemes, which have been provided with State aid through the local authorities over the years, have provided an essential service for which they should be complimented.

References to privatisation and to public private partnerships do not spell out a nationwide privatisation of the water supply. The design, build and operate provisions I refer to are all standard current arrangements. A new capital water services fund has been provided by my Department and design, build and operate provisions are operating prior to the enactment of this legislation. The public private partnerships will operate either on the basis of a contract between a water services authority and a private operator or a joint water services authority in arrangement with the private sector to provide the service. It is important to note that the norm is that the design, build and operate scheme will be for about 20 years. It is also important to note that the assets never become the property of the private partnership.

Senator Bannon also made reference to the number of amendments. There are a substantial number of Government amendments. It must be recalled that the Bill was published last December. It was the first time there was an opportunity to embark on a consultation process. Many stakeholders are involved. There was an opportunity then, when the Bill was in the public arena, to consult with the local authorities. Many amendments have evolved as a result of that. When finalised, the Bill will be a much better legislation, not in the interests, necessarily, of the Minister and the Department, but of the people we represent. We have consulted with all of the local authorities, with the National Federation of Group Water Schemes and with IBEC. Senators know the important role the rural water monitoring committee plays in the provision of water to rural areas. I hope I have made it clear there is no question of privatisation. It is not on the agenda.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Over the years we understood that local authorities were responsible for some eight to ten programmes, namely housing, roads, environmental issues etc. However, following its establishment, the National Roads Authority took a great deal of the powers away from the local authorities in respect of national primary and secondary routes. Now we are setting up the water services authority. This will be an umbrella for the local authority. It will be easy for a future government to cut off the water services authority from the local authority. It is opening an avenue for privatisation in the future. The Minister of State cannot disagree with me on that. Why not leave it in the remit of local authorities which are doing a fine job? My local authority, Longford County Council, has provided water to 95% of the population in the county by way of group water schemes etc. We have some of the best reservoirs in the country in Longford, giving an adequate supply of clean water. A big problem in our county, however, which is similar to that in other counties, is the lack of proper sewerage facilities in the towns and villages. There is a major shortfall in funding for sewerage schemes, which is causing contamination to the water supplies. In the last ten years enormous development has taken place in many villages and they are not able to cope because of the lack of properly constructed sewerage schemes. This is having an impact on ground water supplies. Perhaps the Minister could grant funding to applicant schemes from the different local authorities to construct sewerage schemes. That would be one way of cleaning up water supplies. The amount of raw sewage running into many of our waterways and water courses is disgraceful. It needs to be tackled if there is to be a guaranteed supply of clean water throughout the land.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I should explain the background to these amendments. Section 44 enables water services authorities, on request, to carry out repairs to service connections to which the owner does not have ready access because they cross neighbouring land. At present scope is confined to repairing connections. In certain circumstances, therefore, it may be open to being interpreted as not providing for replacing them. Unlikely as this may seem it is possible, for example, that someone might seek to draw such a distinction in an attempt to frustrate the operation of the section in the course of a dispute between neighbours in order to prevent the resolution of a problem with the service connection running under neighbouring land. In the circumstances it is considered prudent to provide specifically for the renewal of service connections in addition to their repair — and to remove any doubt as to the intention of section 44 in that regard. The amendment to section 44(1)(a) provides, accordingly, that service connections may be both repaired and renewed. In addition it corrects a syntax error in the original test. The amendment to section 44(1)(b) arises from amendment No. 78.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Over the years when small group water schemes were constructed by local committees to keep down the costs and to counteract the risk of major disruption to country roads, wayleaves were signed crossing lands etc., by the land owners. People had a right to cross those lands. If they needed to cross them to carry out repairs permission was given by means of the wayleave. Are these agreements now obsolete because of this section being included in the Bill? Perhaps the Minister of State could elaborate.

Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome what the Minister of State has said. In my experience over the years, many disputes have arisen, particularly with small group water schemes, as regards the lack of rights of the owner of the land. There was a time when a land owner on whose field a spring or well was found, was entitled to free water. That was disputed and the cases would end up in the courts on some occasions. There were many such cases that John B. Keane could have written about as regards the ownership of lands or springs. They caused major problems for small schemes. I know of two water schemes where it was not possible to repair pipes that had broken down, as access was not forthcoming to the reservoir. I am glad the Minister of State has clarified that necessary repairs or renewal of a service connection will be dealt with on the lands in question. I hope we can agree to this section as it is important.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Bill contains provisions on way-leaves. Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 to this section are somewhat different. There is no change to existing way-leaves. We want to ensure that in addition to repair work, renewal of service connections can be carried out. Previous legislation provides for repair of service connections only. However, there is a clear distinction between repair and renewal. While such an issue has never before arisen, a person who raised such an issue would be legally able to prevent the carrying out of renewal of services sited on his or her land. The new provision will overcome such problems. The consultation which took place on the Bill since published and the amendments now tabled will ensure the legislation is better than when first circulated.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 81 is an alternative to Government amendment No. 80 and both may be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 80:

In page 49, line 1, to delete "damages any water pipe" and substitute "causes any damage to a water main, distribution system".

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment is necessary to broaden the application of section 45. Its effects will be to ensure that liability for damage to a pipe will apply whether caused directly or indirectly. Under the provision, as currently worded, it may not be possible to successfully prosecute a person who was engaged in construction work in the vicinity of a pipe owned by a water services authority and whose work, while not directly damaging a pipe, weakened the area around it leading to its damage at a later stage. The legislation as currently drafted could, in such circumstances, allow the person who indirectly caused the damage to escape liability.

Such a restriction is not considered just or appropriate and was not intended, hence the substitution of "causes any damage" for the word "damages". In addition, the amendment updates the references to water pipe to include water mains and distribution systems. This aspect of the amendment arises from the series of amendments to section 2 to streamline and clarify the distinction between drains, sewers, water mains, distribution systems and service connections.

As the amendment covers the same ground as amendment No. 81, perhaps the Senator would consider withdrawing his amendment. Amendment No. 80 is tantamount to the Senator's amendment and covers the same principle.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State is jumping the gun when he states the two amendments cover the same ground. Perhaps he will clarify who is responsible for damage caused to a mains. Will it be those working in the vicinity of such mains? Will the owners of the scheme, be it a local authority or private group sewerage or water scheme, be responsible for repairs even though they were not directly involved in the damage caused to the mains? Such liability can impose considerable burdens on group water schemes, all of which are voluntary. Local authority mains will be the responsibility of local authorities.

Many of the people who set up group water schemes and group sewerage schemes in the 1960s and 1970s have moved on. There may not now be many personnel involved in ensuring such schemes are properly constructed and repaired. Perhaps the Minister of State will say if responsibility will automatically fall to the particular local authority to repair any damage caused by way of excavation, construction and so on.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The person or company who causes the damage shall be responsible for the repairs. Senator Bannon is correct when he states that many of the group water schemes were established some years ago. Where trustees pass on or retire, new trustees can be appointed. In short, the person responsible for the damage shall be the person or company who causes it.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have been involved in a number of group water schemes down through the years and many of those with whom I worked on such schemes have now passed on. It is difficult to get people to put their names forward as trustees of a scheme given the implications involved. We need to introduce regulations in this area. Once a service is set up, nobody is willing to take on responsibility for its continuance. The Government needs to consider this issue in the context of those who take on the job of trustee when another passes on.

Many schemes currently have only one trustee; in some instances there is no trustee attached to a scheme. Trustees are responsible for the spending of funds in banks, building societies, post offices and so on in regard to such schemes. This issue needs to be considered in the not too distant future.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Bill makes provision for the replacement of trustees. We are all aware, having spent time on local authorities, that many group water schemes were anxious for various councils to take over such schemes. Many councils took over group water schemes which met the required standards. I realise it is difficult to find people willing to do the work and that this, in turn, is somewhat unfair to trustees. However, my experience has been that most trustees are professional and ensure necessary repair works are carried out.

I would encourage individuals to take part in group water schemes which have played an important role in the provision of water as an essential service to many parts of rural Ireland in particular. While an issue arises in the context of who will undertake such responsibility, I believe it is possible to replace trustees. It does not necessarily follow that if one is a trustee one is in a position to carry out repairs. One is in a position to administer a scheme and to make the necessary arrangements for it. Group water schemes have served us well and I encourage people to continue to take part in them.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 83:

In page 49, lines 7 and 8, to delete "Unless otherwise provided for in this Act or in any other enactment, no" and substitute "No".

Legislation is supposed to bring clarity to certain matters. Section 46, as drafted, does not do so. It states on the one hand that the section means one thing and, on the other, states that it means something else. It goes without saying that other legislation might state something different on this issue. There is no need to muddy the waters with such a statement. I ask the Minister of State to accept the amendment.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 46 updates sections 281 and 282 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act 1878 which requires, inter alia, sanitary authorities to obtain prior approval from public authorities before undertaking work in their functional areas. To avoid disturbing the status quo between water services authorities, now sanitary authorities, and other public authorities, the Bill accordingly provides that nothing in this Bill shall be construed so as to set aside a requirement in other legislation for a water services authority to consult with or obtain the agreement of another public authority before undertaking work affecting a premises in which the public authority has an interest. For example, the approval of a harbour authority would be necessary before undertaking work in the harbour area.

I cannot accept the amendment that has been proposed, which purports to remove any possibility that another provision might provide for a change in the status quo at any stage in this or another enactment. It would prevent alternative consultation requirements from applying. It is considered reasonable to acknowledge that such a change could occur. The tightening of the proposed provision could and would be over-ruled at any stage by a future Act of the Oireachtas. In such circumstances, a danger of conflict between section 46 and the relevant new provision would arise, necessitating a specific amendment to section 46. It is considered to be an unnecessary administrative exercise.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In this amendment, I ask the Minister of State to delete the words "Unless otherwise provided for in this Act or in any other enactment". It is a conditional statement. There is no great clarity in this section as it stands. Perhaps the Minister will consider examining it again.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amendment is considered unnecessary because the administrative exercise in question is unnecessary. The provision is a standard one that is found in many Acts.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 84:

In page 49, subsection (2), line 26, after "Act" to insert "but not for the purpose of imposing a charge on an end user".

The amendment allows for meters to be used to measure water usage. I do not want section 47 to be a vehicle for the introduction of water charges. When we debated the Bill previously, I stated that I thought it would be used for that purpose.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 85 is out of order because it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 86:

In page 50, lines 11 and 12, to delete all words from and including "that" in line 11 down to and including "functions" in line 12.

Section 48 provides for ministerial discretion, which I would have considered to be imperative in every power. Why does this section expressly provide for ministerial discretion? Should I presume that the Minister's other powers under this Bill will not be exercised at his discretion? Will the Minister elaborate on the matter?

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As it is currently worded, section 48 requires the Minister to consult "any Minister of the Government" that he or she considers to be relevant before he or she makes regulations "requiring water services authorities or other persons prescribed" to undertake specified consultation in the course of the exercise of their functions. If I accept the amendment, the section will require the Minister to consult "any Minister of the Government" prior to agreeing any regulations. There is a potential ambiguity. If the amendment is accepted, the word "any" may be interpreted as relating to one or all Ministers. Such ambiguity could lead to difficulty in interpreting the section. A requirement for the Minister to consult all members of the Government before making regulations is not necessary and would place an unnecessary administrative burden on all concerned. I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment for the reasons I mentioned.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 88, which was discussed with amendment No. 25, cannot be moved as a consequence of the acceptance of amendment No. 87.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 50 enables a water services authority to enter into an agreement with any person to provide water services, subject to planning permission requirements. Such an agreement can be reached with a view to the subsequent transfer of ownership of the infrastructure from the person in question to the water services authority. The amendment proposes to restrict the requirement to take planning permissions into account to relevant planning permissions only. It will avoid any confusion about the intention of the Bill in this respect. It is considered that the Bill's requirement to take into account planning permissions, as currently drafted, is too broad. It could lead to difficulty in the application of the provision, or to vexatious actions designed to frustrate its application.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 90:

In page 50, subsection (1), line 34, after "agreement" to insert "in relation to the discharge of its functions under this Act".

We need to limit the scope of the agreements into which a water services authority can enter. I propose that an authority may enter into agreements only if they relate to the discharge of its functions under the Act. Perhaps the Minister of State will accept this important amendment. It should be accepted.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 50 enables a water services authority to enter into an agreement with any person to provide water service infrastructure, with a view to that person subsequently transferring ownership to the authority. Therefore, the agreement to which Senator Bannon referred does not relate directly to the discharge of its functions per se by a water services authority. On the other hand, the specific purpose of the agreement has already been set out in detail in sections 50(2) and 50(3). In the circumstances, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. It could conflict with the provisions of the subsections I mentioned.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 91:

In page 50, subsection (2), line 36 after "person" to insert ", for a fixed charge".

We are all familiar with the spiralling costs of the large and small contracts into which the Government has entered, at the expense of the taxpayer. Perhaps fewer contracts will be entered into now that there have been such changes in local authority personnel. We will scrutinise such contracts in greater detail.

Cyprian Brady (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The budgets will be interesting.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Local authorities controlled by the Labour Party, Fine Gael and the Green Party will be more vigilant.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are not controlling them all.

Cyprian Brady (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The county managers will take control of a few of them.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will be more careful in how we use taxpayers money because, after all, people pay for the services. It is important that we act as custodians of taxpayers money.

Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about the last five years?

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose that we stipulate that all contracts entered into by water services authorities should be fixed price contracts. We know from our experience of cronyism that contracts that were agreed went three times beyond what the agreement was on the day. That is something we have to guard against and I hope the Minister of State will accept the amendment.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the thrust of the amendment. The local authority I was a member of was controlled by Fianna Gael and Labour. Sadly, that is no longer the case as it is now controlled by Fine Gael.

There is an issue in terms of transparency of contracts and the whole tender process. I can recall at divisional and full meetings, officials, as they are required, opening the tenders in the presence of the members, rattling off the figures in those tenders and then leaving. The power to make a decision as to who was awarded a contract was not a reserved function, therefore the input of members was minimal. The process whereby officials opened tenders at meetings during which many issues were discussed, and members were not involved in the decision-making process to decide who got a contract, was just a visual exercise. There is an important point in regard to that process and I appeal to the Minister to look favourably on this amendment.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The insertion of a provision restricting agreements under this section to fixed charge agreements is unnecessarily restrictive and pre-empts any ongoing development in public procurement policy. The purpose of this section is to enable a water services authority to enter into an agreement with a person to provide water services infrastructure with a view to that person subsequently transferring ownership of it to the water services authority.

While I understand Senators Bannon and McCarthy's concerns about control of costs, such control is best exercised within the framework of current public procurement policy. Inclusion of a requirement for fixed cost agreements in subsection (2) may lead ultimately to a lack of synchronisation between this provision and public procurement policy. Fixed cost agreements may not necessarily be the best solution in all cases and it is best that water services authorities be guided by ongoing public procurement policy rather than be restricted to a particular course of action by this Bill.

Members will be aware there are strict rules governing public procurement, including EU requirements. If there are to be fixed costs it may be that we would not have the element of competition. Having fixed costs does not necessarily mean the taxpayer may benefit. Supply and demand will dictate things. Members may be aware it is not necessarily the lowest costs but, all things being equal, the lowest tender that will get the contract. The regulations on contract documents have to be in order and I am a great believer in the provision of public procurement policy.

As for vigilance, one does not necessarily have to have a Government in power to be vigilant. All the tenders are there for members to see, and members witness the opening of tenders to ensure nothing is slipped into the box subsequently. I do not appreciate, therefore, the reference to cronyism. I have spent 25 years in public life and I do not believe I have ever come across a situation whereby a tender was selected on any basis other than on that which was best for the local authority, the water services or the taxpayers' interest. If we were to introduce fixed charges we might find many contractors would not be interested or that only a small group would be interested, which could lead to an escalation rather than a reduction of costs.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With regard to what the Minister said, it is important that some mechanism be devised whereby the list of tenders for a particular job is published in the county manager's orders. As Senator McCarthy said, there should be a tenders committee and the three or four members on that committee should initial the outside of the envelope and the documents, which would then be passed on. That would be the last the members would see of those contracts. The names of those who tender should appear in the county manager's orders to highlight full transparency in regard to the particular job. Nobody, including the contractors, could be aggrieved about that. One often hears someone complain afterwards that they were within X euro of achieving a contract or that they were lower than what the contractor was taking etc. If they had an agreement they could dispute it if they had the figures and reasons could be given as to why the contract was not taken. That would bring greater transparency to the area of local government and the various authorities established by Government. It would be an open and transparent process.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 94 is related to amendment No. 93 and they can be taken together by agreement.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 51 provides for the powers of a water services provider to temporarily interrupt services for maintenance purposes or where there is a risk to human health or the environment. The first of these amendments removes the seven day, prior notice stipulation from subsection (3) in regard to planned interruption of water services. It is not considered appropriate on a practical, operational level to prescribe a specific time period for notification of the interruption of services.

Shortened interruptions, often late at night and of minimal duration, are routinely necessary to allow technical adjustments of calibration to take place and to facilitate checking for leakage. Such interruptions take place overnight and the consumer would generally be unaware of their occurrence. It would neither be practical nor reasonable to give seven days' notice of such actions. A similar approach is taken in other jurisdictions.

Removal of the seven day notice requirement is complemented by the second amendment which enables the Minister to issue guidance as to what reasonably could be regarded as an appropriate alternative supply of drinking water for domestic purposes for the purposes of the fulfilment by a water services provider of its obligations under subsection (4)(b) to provide such a supply. It further provides that the exercise by a water services provider of its authority under this section to temporarily interrupt a water supply shall be subject to compliance with any such guidance. Amendment No. 94 ensures the interests of consumers continue to be protected.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the powers under section 52 to recover sums due can be duly assigned to any person performing a function under the Act. Section 52 provides generally that a county or city council acting in its capacity as a water services authority or its agent may recover any sum due to the authority either through the courts or by deduction from any other moneys owed by the council to the debtor or, as appropriate, by registering a charge on a premises owned by a debtor.

Subsection (6) enables the Minister, by regulations, to assign the powers to recover moneys under this section to other persons. As currently worded, however, this could be interpreted as only applying to the recovery of moneys owed to a water services authority whereas it is intended the regulations could specify other persons to whom a sum is due under the Act, and it could use the powers available under section 52 to effect that recovery.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State refers to the provision of water services. However, I detect in his contribution that this may be a channel to reintroduce water charges. Does a water service cover the supply of water or the connection to a mains? Will that involve a group taking responsibility? Will the Minister of State elaborate if this is really a water charge?

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am referring to any debt that would be due to a county or city council acting in its capacity as a water services authority. Section 52(6) enables the Minister to assign his powers to others, such as a group water scheme or contractors, to recover debts over and above the water services authority. This amendment provides the mechanism — nothing more, nothing less — for them to do so.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the domestic water charge excluded in this?

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no domestic water charge.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Recently, there has been much talk of the EU imposing a regulation in this area on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Does this amendment provide a vehicle for charging for domestic water supply?

Cyprian Brady (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That has nothing to do with the amendment.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Bannon, your argument is very tenuous with regard to the section and the amendment.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would have been foolish of me to expect to go through 50 sections of the Water Services Bill without reference to water charges. I am delighted to confirm that there are no domestic water charges and the Government does not intend introducing them, whether Senator Bannon welcomes this or not. The Bill does not contain any provisions for the introduction of water charges. Instead, primary legislation would be required to introduce them. Nor does the Bill empower the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, by way of regulation or otherwise, to introduce water charges.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is as clear as water.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State is incorrect in claiming there are no water charges. There are water charges for business and agricultural connections.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The record of the debate will show that I said there are no domestic water charges. There are water charges for supply in other areas. I do not know what is the Fine Gael Party's policy on this but the Government does not intend——

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State should not invite comment.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Bill will not be used as a vehicle to introduce charges. While, there are, rightly, charges for certain supplies, there are no domestic water charges.

Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Domestic water charges cannot be recovered.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 96:

In page 52, subsection (1)(c), line 20, after "authority" to insert "to a material extent".

Section 53 prohibits the waste of or unauthorised use of a connection to a water supply. However, this section is overly bureaucratic as it can be construed that wasting a glass of water is an equal offence to wasting 1,000 gallons.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In considering this amendment, I regarded the extent to which it would bring clarity to the intended meaning of the section. However, nothing sufficient will be gained by the addition of the term "to a material extent" to warrant its inclusion in the text.

Ultimately, it will be a matter for the courts to decide whether an action of an accused person amounts to wilful waste of water. In doing so, the courts will view each case on its individual merits. It is reasonable to expect that no court will entertain any perverse prosecution based on the waste of negligible amounts of water, just as it is reasonable to expect that such a prosecution would not be brought in the first instance.

Insertion of a reference to "material extent" implies that if the level of wastage was immaterial, a prosecution might well be brought. Such a prosecution is not tenable and prosecuting authorities do not act in such a manner. If any did, a judge would rightly throw the case out.

Should clarification be required as to the circumstances in which a water services authority might undertake action leading to prosecution under this section, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is provided with sufficient powers under section 30(4)(i) to issue any necessary directions. I hope Senator McCarthy will appreciate I am not in a position to accept his amendment.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 98 and 100 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 98:

In page 52, subsection (1), line 28, after "shall" to insert "take such steps as are reasonably within his or her control to".

My highly-skilled parliamentary team informed me that the Bill takes a too bureaucratic line, which this amendment proposes to address. Occupiers can do little to ensure that the water on their premises meets prescribed quality standards. I appeal to the Minister to consider this amendment in the context of good and comprehensible legislation. Legislation and Departments should be more user-friendly. There has been a concerted effort in recent years by Departments to reduce mumbo-jumbo terminology that some may find too bureaucratic. Relaxing the overall element of bureaucracy in the Bill will make it more comprehensible. I ask the Minister of State to accept this amendment.

Cyprian Brady (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The vicinities of chip shops and others are covered under the environmental protection Acts. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect the proprietors of busy pubs and restaurants to take responsibility for their premises. This amendment goes too far as the section already puts the onus on the proprietors.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The intention of these amendments is similar to the earlier proposal to amend section 53 by inserting a reference to wastage of water to a material extent. It can be reasonably expected that in considering whether an offence has been committed under section 54(1) and (2), a court will not find against the owner of a premises in circumstances where the event for which they have been prosecuted happened because of circumstances beyond his or her control, such as damage by a third party or an act of God.

The main objective of the section is to ensure that subsequent to the discovery of a problem with a distribution system in a particular premises, sufficient powers are available to ensure that remedial action is taken. An owner is, therefore, obliged to carry out necessary remedial works as directed by a water services authority, unless the authority decides to carry it out itself, regardless of whether the owner can be blamed for the cause of the inadequacy in the system in the first instance. Qualification of this by the insertion of reference to steps that are reasonably within the control of the owner could undermine the effectiveness of this provision. An owner might argue, for example, that because he or she could not undertake the necessary remedial works, that obligation could not be applied to him or her. As currently provided for in the Bill, the duties ofcare in subsections (1) and (2) are stated in absolute terms. The intention behind this approach is to leave it to the wisdom of the court to decide whether they can reasonably be applied in given circumstances. This is a reasonable approach.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 99 has already been discussed with amendment No. 57. The reference to subsection (3) in the amendment should be to subsection (1).

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 6. The definition of distribution system is revised and is now located with other similar definitions in subsection (2).

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment incorporates a series of changes and updates to section 55 to expand its scope and synchronise it with similar provisions to section 61 with regard to connection to waste water services. The entire section as revised is reproduced as one amendment to facilitate a clearer understanding of the effects of the various changes to the existing text. Section 55 prohibits unauthorised connection to water supplies and enables a water services authority to require that pipes be opened for inspection prior to connection to its water supply or that of its agent.

The amendment expands the scope of the original section 55 to include, in addition to prohibiting the unauthorised connection of a premises to a supply, an explicit prohibition on taking a supply without permission. The additional provision will, for example, prohibit the unauthorised connection of hoses and standpipes to public water mains during the course of building works. The amendment also synchronises section 55 with the revised definition of service connection in section 2 and ensures that any related pipes and fittings are also included within the scope of the section. Good defence clauses are introduced to ensure synchronisation with the similar provision in section 61 regarding connection to waste water services. The new wording is couched in terms of connection to a water supply rather than a specific water supply pipe so it is not confined to the actual point of connection of a pipe to a water main, but can be applied to any connection made to a water supply network at any point.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment arises from a series of amendments to section 2 to streamline and clarify the distinction between water mains, distribution system and service connections. The insertion of reference to a service connection in line 1 will ensure that the prohibition on pollution of water supplies applies from the moment the water enters the pipe in the water works to its point of delivery to the consumer.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like clarity regarding service connection. From time to time throughout the country service connections are made on a temporary basis to provide a supply to a new house, for example, until such time as a mains passes the house, a group water scheme is established or the local authority mains supply is extended. Service connection is something that is fairly loosely applied in many areas. If one has one's own independent water supply one can bring service connections to various parts of a farm, for example. In bygone days substandard piping was used. Anyone can make a service connection to a building site. Bringing it to such a site or to a landfill site, for example, tends to cause contamination of the water supply. The Minister of State might elaborate a little further.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We should clear up any ambiguity in this area and explain what is a service connection. Senator Bannon may have been misinformed if he is thinking of a service connection as providing a water service to works in progress on a building site. The service connection I refer to in this respect is in essence the pipe which runs between the outer boundary of a premises and the sewer or water mains as the case may be. The issue of responsibility for the maintenance of service connections has been raised with the Department and specifically by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to individual complaints. That office has expressed the view that existing legislation is potentially unfair in requiring owners or occupiers to bear the cost of repairs to service connections in all cases. A service connection is the point where the connection is made and not what I or others may have interpreted as providing a service to an ongoing building site.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are three aspects to this amendment. The first is the expansion of the scope of the section from sewers to include waste water works. Another aspect is the simplification of the terminology and the third is the application of the maintenance obligations under the section to all providers of water services regardless of whether they are under contract.

Under section 60 as currently drafted, all services providers are required to keep their sewers in good order. This is intended to apply to all elements of the waste water collection and treatment process. However, in the light of the revised definitions of sewer and waste water works in section 2, the use of the word "sewer" confines the scope of this section to a narrow field of application incorporating only the actual sewer pipes through which effluent is collected. Substitution of the term "waste water works" ensures that the maintenance obligations apply to all elements of a water service provider's waste water collection and treatment infrastructure.

The second aspect relates to the simplification of the terminology. Replacement of the detailed statement of obligation for waste water works to be cleansed, emptied, covered and properly constructed with a simpler requirement for them to be maintained is intended to avoid possible loopholes arising from over-defining the obligation, resulting in a consequential restriction on its scope. It is envisaged that the requirement to maintain the infrastructure which amounts to the same as that being replaced will be capable of a flexible reasoned interpretation to accommodate the commonly understood meaning of the term "at the discretion of the courts". The original wording of subsection (1) places the obligations under the section on water services authorities, their public-private partnership partners and authorised providers of water services. The amendment expands this obligation to include persons operating with, or on behalf of, authorised water services providers under contract. It is part of a series of similar amendments to the text of the Bill to ensure relevant powers and duties under the Bill apply also to that category of water services provider. It is considered appropriate and equitable that such an obligation exists for a water services authority and an authorised provider for water services. While these obligations have been extended to the PPP partner of a water services authority, they should also be extended to the PPP partner of the authorised water services provider.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased the Government is taking full responsibility for this matter under paragraph (a) where there is likely to be a risk to human health. In the past, asbestos piping was used to distribute water along public roads, and the Government is taking full responsibility for the asbestos piping throughout the country. It is important for the Minister of State to carry out an audit of the areas throughout the country where asbestos piping was used. This should be rectified by way of upgrading and updating group schemes and regional schemes. It has been brought to my notice on many occasions that asbestos was used. The Government is taking full responsibility for this in the amendment and it will be held accountable for any health risks that may occur from poor quality or asbestos piping in water mains throughout the country.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Local authorities will only take responsibility for what they own.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is an onus on the Government to provide funding to upgrade to health and safety standards of group water schemes where asbestos piping was installed in the past.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to clarify the position in regard to public schemes expenditure. The Government has not been found wanting in regard to increases in public schemes expenditure. In the period 1997-2003, Exchequer expenditure on water infrastructure increased by128%, from €207 million to €471 million. The Government has a commitment to water infrastructure under the current national development plan, which is reflected in the €4.4 billion being made available for the period 2002-06. The purpose of this is to deliver a first class water service to the people. The spend is three times greater than that invested in the previous national plan.

On the rural water programme, in 2004 the Government allocated €100 million, four times that allocated in 1997. The Government is taking seriously its responsibility and providing substantial funds to upgrade and provide new schemes throughout the country.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a serious matter and we are all aware of the dangers of asbestos. Will the Minister of State give a guarantee that the mains water piping installed in the past throughout the country will not pose a risk to human health? I would like clarity on the issue because communities are concerned that some mains which were put in place in the 1960s and early 1970s included asbestos piping which can cause serious damage to people's health. There is an onus on the Minister of State and the Government to ensure anything that might pose a health risk is removed forthwith, no matter what the cost. There is an onus on the Government to ensure the use of asbestos piping to distribute water throughout the country, including our towns and villages, is discontinued.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not disagree with the Senator. I would be alarmed to learn that drinking water is running through asbestos piping. Obviously Senator Bannon is thinking of a specific scheme. I would like if he could bring details of any such scheme to me and I will pursue the matter with the relevant local authority. As far as I am aware, there are no schemes where asbestos piping is currently being used, but if there are, I will be pleased to receive details from the Senator and pursue the matter with the relevant local authority. The €4.4 billion commitment over the period 2002-06 is ample proof of the Government's commitment to providing top quality water throughout the country.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the second last line of subsection (5) of the proposed new section the word "may" should appear after the word "authority".

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As amendment No. 107 involves the deletion of section 61, the question should be declared negatived.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 108 and 110 to 116, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 62 enables the water services authority to test for nuisances in drains and sewers and requires remedial action to be taken, if appropriate. Arising from the series of amendments to section 2 to streamline and clarify the distinction between drains, sewers and service connections, many of the provisions in section 62 in regard to drains have been incorporated into the revised section 43 and are now redundant. Amendment No. 75 refers to drains and subsections (1), (2) and (3) are being deleted accordingly. Subsections (4), (5) and (6) are also being updated in light of the amendments to section 2 so as to incorporate reference to service connections, thus ensuring all drainage connecting premises to a sewer is provided for.

The provisions in question enable the water services authority, where it considers that a premises, regardless of whether its drainage is defective or neglected, is not drained satisfactorily, to issue a notice under section 42, requiring the owner of the premises to connect to a sewer. Such notice could issue, for instance, where a premises was found under examination to be drained to a sceptic tank and the water services authorities wanted it to be connected to a nearby sewerage scheme. In addition to the normal procedure, subsections 42(4) and (5) provide that the water services authority may provide the connection or contribute to the cost at its discretion.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The purpose of the amendment is to avoid frustration of the application of section 62(1). It expands the scope of paragraph (b)(iii) to provide for the testing of a sewer not alone where a water services authority has grounds to believe it may permit the infiltration of water but also where it considers it might permit waste water to leak out. The expansion of the scope of the paragraph is intended to cover all eventualities and to prevent spurious challenges to any intervention by a water services authority, for example, on the grounds of difficulty in providing infiltration rather than leakage of water, not withstanding the poor state of repair of a particular pipe.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 117:

In page 62, subsection (7), line 47, after "or" to insert "at any time".

Amendment No. 117 is a technical amendment to clarify the second part of section 63(7). The purpose of amendment No. 118 is to take into account circumstances where there might be intermittent or negligible use, or all but total abandonment of a licence. The amendment seeks to avoid a situation where the loss of a licence could be avoided by a day's use. I hope the Minister will consider accepting both amendments.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 63(7) provides that where a trade effluent discharge authorised by a licence has not been made for three years, the licence shall cease to have effect. The provision, which is based on the existing provisions for trade effluent licensing under the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977, which are being consolidated into the Bill, is intended to weed out dormant licences and ensure that all licences are relevant and current. Where a licensed operation has not discharged relevant effluent for a period of three years it is considered reasonable to assume that the licence is no longer necessary.

It is possible that a particular operation might be licensed for occasional sporadic discharge and may, quite legitimately in accordance with its licence, over a four year period not discharge for a cumulative period of more than three years. In such circumstances, it is not envisaged that a licence should be considered to be dormant or to have ceased to have effect.

The existing provision, based on the original 1997 legislation, has stood the test of time. The three year requirement has proven to be effective and has not caused any operational difficulties. I recognise the points made by Senator Bannon but do not think the amendments are necessary. In the circumstances, I regret that I am unable to accept them.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a technical amendment to correct a cross-referencing error. Review of a trade effluent discharge licence is provided for under section 65 rather than this subsection of section 63.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a technical amendment to ensure consistency with similar provisions elsewhere in the Bill.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The purpose of the amendment is to provide additional grounds under which a water services authority may review a trade effluent discharge licence issued under section 63. In addition to the existing grounds, it will enable a review to be carried out at the discretion of a water services authority in two further circumstances: where the capacity of the relevant waste water treatment plant properly to treat the trade effluent discharge has been or is likely to be exceeded; and where a drain or a service connection, or part of it, through which trade effluent is discharged to a sewer under a licence is itself declared to be a sewer under section 69. Paragraphs (e) and (f) remain unchanged and the additional paragraph (g) enables a water services authority to review a trade effluent discharge licence where the capacity of the treatment works into which the effluent is to eventually discharge is exceeded or likely to be exceeded.

This is a necessary provision to ensure that the integrity of the authority's waste water treatment process is maintained. A water services authority may, for example, decide to require a licensee to carry out a specified level of pre-treatment in order to preserve some of its own treatment capacity and it could set out requirements in this regard in the conditions of a revised licence issued following the review.

With regard to paragraph (h), it is envisaged that the powers under section 69 to declare a drain or service connection to be a sewer under the control of a water services authority could be invoked, for example, in the case of a complex drainage system in an industrial estate in order to facilitate the application of trade effluent licensing requirements to a particular industrial outlet. In such circumstances, an existing trade effluent licence may need to be reviewed to ensure it is synchronised properly with the new licence issued to the individual industrial outlet.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 123 is consequential on amendment No. 122 and both may be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 122:

In page 66, subsection (1)(a), line 31, to delete "The occupier of a premises from which" and substitute "A person causing or permitting".

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These amendments replace reference in section 66(1) to "The occupier of a premises" with reference to a person causing a discharge. Their purpose is to identify more precisely who may make an appeal under this section in regard to a decision on a trade effluent discharge licence. Section 66 provides for appeal of decisions on licence applications or licence reviews under sections 63 and 65. It is essentially a restatement of similar provisions under the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act which had been repealed and consolidated in the Bill.

It has come to notice in the course of consultations following publication of the Bill that the use of the term "occupier" has on occasion caused some disruption to the operation of the licensing appeals system under the water pollution Acts. Difficulties can arise, for example, in the case of a dispute between a landlord and a tenant over who is the rightful legal occupier of a premises and therefore has the right to bring an appeal.

The purpose of these amendments is to remove any doubt in this respect. They express without equivocation that the right of appeal applies to the person who is causing the discharge concerned, regardless of any tenancy issues. The revised wording reflects the style of wording in section 63 and is concerned with the requirement to apply for a licence in the first instance and will allow An Bord Pleanála to proceed with an appeal without delay while any dispute over legal occupancy is resolved separately through appropriate channels.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments No. 124 is an alternative to No. 125 and both may be discussed together by agreement.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the powers of An Bord Pleanála in dealing with an appeal under section 66 relating to a trade effluent discharge licence and to give it additional powers of direction for this purpose. The current wording of subsection (2) is based on the provision in section 20 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977, as amended by section 15 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Act 1990, which has been consolidated into the Bill.

However, the Department has been made aware of the difficulty with the application of this provision. The board is only given two options in determining an appeal in that it may either allow or refuse it. Technically, therefore, it cannot make a direction to a licensing authority about the attachment of specified conditions unless it has committed itself to either option. In cases in which it might agree substantially but not fully with an appellant's argument, therefore, the board needs additional powers, while neither allowing nor refusing an appeal, simply to direct the Water Services Authority to make specified amendments to licensing conditions. The proposed amendment will therefore enable the board first, to allow or refuse an appeal or second, to direct the Water Services Authority about the granting of a licence or the variation of a licence by amendment, definition or addition of specified conditions.

Amendment No. 124 covers the same purpose as amendment No. 125 in the name of Senator Bannon and amendment No. 125 is, therefore, superfluous. In view of this I ask the Senator to consider withdrawing it.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State has again replaced my amendment with a Government amendment. I wished to insert the words "in whole or part" after the word "appeal" in section 67(2). As the Minister of State said earlier, subsection (2) as drafted appears to limit the power of An Bord Pleanála to refuse an appeal. There does not appear to be any middle ground. My amendment simply proposes to clarify this section. The Government amendment was explained satisfactorily by the Minister of State.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 126 to 128, inclusive, and Nos 130 and 131 are consequential on amendment No. 169, therefore, amendments Nos. 126 to 128, inclusive, and Nos. 130, 131 and 169 may be discussed together by agreement.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The purpose of amendment No. 169, which inserts a new section, section 102, is to bring together the provisions of the Bill and the Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts which deal with the determination of fees for appeals to An Bord Pleanála and to align with provisions for appeals to the board under the planning code. It will facilitate the application of uniform procedures by the board in respect of the various appeals processes for which it has responsibility and further streamline the regulatory process.

The text of the proposed new section is based on similar provisions in section 144 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The new section enables the board to determine fees for appeals under section 66 of the Bill in the matter of licensing of trade effluent discharges to sewers under section 63. In addition, it may determine fees for appeals under section 8 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1997, as amended by section 6 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Act 1990, in the matter of licensing of trade effluent discharge to waters. However, either such determination will be subject to the approval of the Minister in the first instance.

Subsection (2) provides that once the Minister has approved the first set of fees, the board is required to review them at intervals of not more than three years and may increase them thereafter in line with the consumer price index without further recourse to the Minister. The consumer price index is defined for the purposes of this section and subsection (3). Under subsection (4), eight weeks' public notification is required before fees that are determined or revised under this section come into effect. Subsection (5) is a transitional provision to enable fees determined in accordance with regulations made under section 6(2)(a) and (b) of the 1977 Act, inserted by section 4 of the 1990 Act, to remain in force until fees are determined by the board under this section. Section 6(2)(a) and (b) are, in turn, being repealed by amendment No. 203. Subsection (6) replaces subsections 67(4) and (5), which are being deleted under amendment No. 130.

Arising from amendment No. 169, references in section 67 to making regulations for fees payable to An Bord Pleanála for appeals to it under section 66 in the matter of licensing decisions under sections 63 and 65 are no longer appropriate. Amendments Nos. 126 to 128, inclusive and No. 131 delete subsection (2), paragraph (i) of section 67 and all subsequent references to it accordingly. Under amendment No. 130, subsections (4) and (5) of section 67 are being deleted. They are being incorporated in the new section 102 by amendment No. 169 in order to consolidate all provisions to do with fees for appeals to An Bord Pleanála into one section. Amendment No. 129 is an incidental technical amendment to correct a syntax error.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is an incidental technical amendment.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, according to the list of amendment groupings, this has already been dealt with.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is only a drafting amendment.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It has been dealt with, according to this document.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 132:

In page 68, subsection (2), lines 42 and 43, to delete all words from and including ", and" in line 42 down to and including "facilities" in line 43.

The Minister of State may want to call my bluff on this one. He said earlier that he did not know where we stood on water charges and charges of various kinds. The Government got its answer in the recent local and European elections. We told people that approximately 35 or 36 promises were broken since the Government took office a mere two years ago.

Cyprian Brady (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That has nothing to do with the amendment.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We discovered from the electorate that there was double that number of broken promises. We are opposed to the imposition of charges on the use of water in all contexts.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On amendment No. 132, section 68 enables a water services authority to provide pump-out facilities for boats, tour buses and caravans, to mention but a few. The provision is intended to facilitate the involvement of local authorities in the development of leisure and amenity facilities in their areas. The section is based on section 27(2) of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1997 which is being repealed and consolidated into this Bill. The purpose of subsections (2) and (3) is to remove any impediment to charging for the use of facilities provided under this section arising from a general prohibition on charging for domestic water services, for example, in the case of a family on a touring holiday in a camper van claiming that they were entitled to free services to meet their domestic needs. In circumstances where a local authority goes to the trouble and expense of providing pump-out facilities for boats, camper vans or for the convenience of tourists and day trippers, it is only reasonable that it should be in a position to charge for their use.

Similar arrangements apply to the provision of other leisure facilities by local authorities, such as swimming pools, and are necessary to encourage and stimulate the development of tourism infrastructure.

For the avoidance of doubt, explicit provision is included in subsection (3) to the effect that, notwithstanding their use of temporary accommodation, a Traveller community household, as with any household in the wider community, is entitled to free water services provision for domestic purposes. This will ensure that the Traveller community continues to be treated in the same manner as the broader community for the purpose of the application of water charges.

In honesty, I do not believe Senator Bannon would want me to accept this amendment. The existing provision does not affect in any way the prohibition on charging for general domestic services and provides only for recovery of the cost of additional services provided to facilitate the pursuit of leisure interests. In the circumstances, I cannot accept the amendment.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment inserts an additional paragraph (a) into subsection (1) to provide that any reference to a drain in section 69 shall be construed as meaning both a drain and a service connection. Its purpose is to ensure that any pipe draining a premises into a sewer comes within the scope of this section and can thus be declared to be a sewer, with a view to requiring any person discharging trade effluent to it to apply for a trade effluent licence under section 63.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 134 and 140 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 69 enables a water services authority to declare that a particular drain shall in future be regarded as a sewer under its control. This amendment substitutes subsection (2) with a revised provision restricting its operation to applying only for the purposes of section 63. The revised provision also stipulates that the drain will be regarded as a sewer under the control of a water services authority for the purpose of applying the licensing requirements of section 63 only and for no other purpose.

The current wording is based on a similar provision in section 16 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977, which is being consolidated in this Bill. However, while reference to "the purposes of this Act" in the 1977 Act was, in effect, confined to monitoring or licensing of discharges from affected drains, the scope of the Water Services Bill 2003 is significantly wider. For example, as currently worded, subsection (2) would enable a water services authority to exercise its general property acquisition powers under the Bill to take over a designated pipe completely. Such an infringement of private property rights would not be appropriate without an associated provision for third party appeals. Provisions to this effect are included under section 43, as amended.

The purpose of the provision in the first instance, under both the 1977 Act and this Bill, is to enable a drain to be declared a water services authority sewer so that, in turn, any person discharging trade effluent into it would be required to obtain a discharge licence under section 63. Insertion of a reference to section 63 rather than the Act as a whole will ensure that provision for this purpose is explicitly made.

Amendment No. 140 is a technical amendment, arising from amendment No. 134.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 135 to 139, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The purpose of this set of amendments is to replace references to obligations on occupiers of a premises under section 69 with references to such obligations applying to persons making or causing a discharge from a premises. A similar amendment has already been inserted into section 66 via amendments Nos. 122 and 123.

Section 69 enables a water services authority to declare a drain to be a sewer for the purposes of requiring a trade effluent licence to be obtained under section 63 regarding any relevant discharge into it. It is based on similar provisions in the Water Pollution Acts, which have been repealed and consolidated in this Bill. In the course of consultations the Department has been advised that the use of the term "occupier" has on occasion caused difficulties under the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977. The case of a dispute between a landlord and tenant over who was the rightful legal occupier of a premises is an example. These amendments remove any doubt in that respect and express without equivocation that the obligations under this section apply to the person who is causing the discharge concerned, regardless of any tenancy issues. The revised wording reflects the style of wording in section 63 on the requirement to apply for a licence to discharge trade effluent into a sewer in the first instance. A similar amendment to section 66 concerns associated appeals.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 141 and 142 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 141:

In page 70, subsection (1), line 23, after "unoccupied" to insert "or comprises of a rented dwelling,".

It is grossly unfair to impose this burden on the tenants of a rented house. It should clearly be the duty of the landlord to ensure that this section be complied with. One simply cannot impose the responsibilities of an owner on the occupier of a rented property. Landlords have responsibility for the properties that they own, and I urge the Minister of State to accept these two amendments. It makes sense to do so and tighten up the legislation in this regard.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If I agreed to accept these amendments, they would place an unreasonable obligation on the owner of a premises to ensure that the actions of a tenant conformed with the requirements under the section to avoid risk to human health and the environment from waste water discharges. It is appropriate that the liability for breach of a duty of care be placed on the perpetrator of that action rather than a third party. It would be unfair on a landlord to hold him or her responsible where, for example, a tenant discharges a noxious substance into a sewer which causes a risk to human health. Clearly, in such an instance where he or she has perpetrated the misdemeanour, the tenant should be held liable for those actions. To provide otherwise would place a landlord in an invidious position and leave him or her open to the abuse of such a provision by a tenant in the event of a tenancy dispute. The deterrent value of the Bill would be greatly reduced if the person responsible for causing the breach of a duty of care were not directly liable for his or her actions, and the duty of care provisions under section 70 would be rendered less effective as a result.

As currently worded, the duties of care under section 70 regarding waste water discharges from a premises apply to the occupiers of that premises, regardless of whether they know it. To cover all situations, such duties of care extend to the owner in all instances where a premises is unoccupied. It is not considered appropriate to compromise those clear lines of responsibility by placing obligations on owners which might be difficult to enforce owing to landlord-tenant issues or because of difficulty with access. The current wording offers the most direct means of enforcement and therefore the most direct means of ensuring that human health and the environment are adequately protected.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a technical amendment to correct a syntax error.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a technical amendment to achieve consistency with the wording at the start of paragraphs (c) and (b).

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 70(4) prohibits the disposal of waste water to drainage or sewerage systems which are designed solely to receive storm water. All modern drain and sewerage systems are designed on that basis. The purpose of the amendment is to avoid any problem with the enforcement of section 70(4) owing to difficulty in proving that a particular system was provided in the first instance solely for the reception of storm water, notwithstanding that it is currently used solely for that purpose. The prohibition will therefore now apply regarding pipes provided or used solely for the reception of storm water.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment replaces and expands the scope of the original section 70(9). The original provision enables the Minister to make regulations to prohibit or restrict the discharge of specified effluent to a sewer. The revised provision, in addition to enabling regulations to be made to prohibit or restrict the discharge of specified effluent to a sewer, will also enable regulations to specify measures to be taken before the discharge of effluent and enable such regulations to apply also to discharges to a drain, service connection or waste water works. Such regulations may be used, for example, to specify requirements regarding the installation of grease traps in food preparation outlets to reduce the load at the treatment works or prevent disruption to the waster water treatment process. Enabling the regulations to apply to discharges to a drain, service connection or waste water works is intended to avoid any problem regarding at what point in the discharge route the specific requirement may have to be undertaken. The amendment ties in with the revised definition of "drain" and "service connection" agreed earlier in section 2.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment inserts an additional subsection into section 70 and arises from the series of amendments in section 2 to streamline and clarify the distinction between drains, sewers and service connections. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that all pipes and drains on a premises come within the scope of section 70.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 148:

In page 71, line 49, after "water" to insert ", together with any ancillary equipment for the purposes of data collection or transmission".

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These are technical amendments to expand the definition of both "water supply meters" and "waste water discharge meters" to facilitate the introduction of data loggers or transponders for data collection and remote reading by radio. They reflect the most modern developments in metering technology.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 are related and may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 72 provides for the basic authority to provide water services by meter. It enables a water services provider to supply water by meter and measure the volume or rate of discharge of water via a meter. Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 will clarify beyond doubt the intent of paragraphs (c) and (d) in subsection (1). These paragraphs enable a water services provider to require a customer to take services via a meter. It is possible that the paragraphs could be interpreted in such a manner that the obligation of the user to take water services via a meter could be satisfied if there is a meter along the route of the distribution network, for example, at the treatment plant. Such a construction would undermine the intent of the provision. To prevent doubt, these amendments enable the water services provider to require that services be taken through a specified meter, for example, on the premises of the user.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why is the Minister of State imposing meters on connections if he does not intend to charge at a future date? A meter is there to gauge the supply of water that is delivered to particular users and the provision of meters introduces the intent of charges. It is evident from what the Minister of State has said that he intends to instruct group and regional water scheme committees and local authorities to impose meters on connections. Charges are down the road and the wool is being pulled over our eyes again. Metering is evidently envisioned in the Minister of State's speech.

Cyprian Brady (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My understanding is that metering is concerned with the collection of information as to the quantity of water usage.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The meter starts running when one enters a taxi and it is there to measure cost not just the distance travelled. There is a fear that metering will be imposed for the specific purpose of charging people for water usage. Given the fiscal situation in this country for the last few years and that many public services have been starved of funds, not least the local authorities for which contributions from the local government fund have decreased significantly, the fear is that metering will be used to charge people for water. Gathering information regarding water usage is an advantage of meters but there are alternative ways of doing this. Mention of the word "metering" lends strong credence to the idea that fees will be introduced for water services and the only purpose of metering will be to introduce costs. I am cognisant of the Minister of State's speech today and I invite him to repeat the statement that there is no Government intention to introduce charges.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have been invited by Senator McCarthy to repeat my earlier statement and I am pleased to do so. The Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1997 precludes the charging of domestic users for water services. This is in line with Government policy and there is no intention to change it. Existing legislation provides for the charging of commercial users and this is well accepted by all sides of the House. This Bill does not change that and the metering provisions in section 72 are intended to support ongoing charges for non-domestic users.

Metering will be universally necessary after 2006 and it makes sense. It is necessary, as Senator Brady observed, for collecting data and facilitating conservation. The amount of water that comes out of the tap after leaving the source varies across local authorities but is only approximately 50% on average. If that figure could be increased to 70% it would reduce dramatically the need to undertake further investment in many water schemes. Metering makes sense and I repeat as unambiguously as possible that there is no intention to introduce domestic water charges. Consumers will be happy to know the quantity of water usage and that wastage can be detected. As I have pointed out today and during last week's Committee Stage debate, the amount of water wasted is frightening.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree the extent of water wastage is frightening. We all know from group, council and public water schemes that much water is being lost and leaked for various reasons. However, there must be some logic behind the introduction of metering and the logic of charging is one of the first that comes to mind. The Minister of State observes that water for commercial use will be metered and charged but many schools and other community-based facilities will face water charges also. I am aware of several schools which are finding it difficult to raise the substantial funds required to pay for metered water through various schemes, whether public, private or group. This is more like domestic than commercial usage because if the pupils are not using the water at home they are using it at school and vice versa. Grants should be provided to schools, which are being metered.

If the ground rule is being established that all water will be metered there must be a logic as to why. I presume it is certainly not for the sake having a meter. A meter is of no benefit unless it is read and if the meters are read there will surely be a certain quantity of water prescribed per household. The figure of 50,000 gallons per annum is the one that has been taken for group and public water schemes for the last few years as the amount allowable for the grants that are being paid. There must be an apparatus for reading the meters that are being established and if people exceed the amount that has been prescribed over the last several years, will there be a charge even for domestic users? That is the issue. The other issue concerns the water usage of schools and community facilities. We can take it that it is not commercial because secondary schools are not getting cash for it, but they have to collect and pay for it.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This Bill does not deal with charges. Even if I were inclined to respond positively to the Senator's suggestion that schools should be exempt, it is not the appropriate Bill. There is no mechanism in this legislation to deal with that. Perhaps I did not clarify this sufficiently in my first response. I want to make it clear that metering will be for non-domestic users. There is no intention of metering for domestic users, who are exempt. If the water services authority, however, was of the opinion that water was being wasted by someone through the domestic system, it would be possible to meter that. This would not be to meter consumption for the purpose of charging, but to establish if water was being wasted. I am glad of the opportunity to clarify that.

The national water services public policy framework requires all local authorities to recover the cost of providing water services from the users, with the exception of households using the services for domestic purposes only. This is in accordance with the appropriate application of the "polluter pays" principle and the requirement of article 9 of the EU waste water directive. This framework does not provide for the exemption of specific classes of non-domestic users, including those engaged in the provision of educational or hospital services, from the charging policy. It would be regarded as inequitable to single out one sector and would lead, in any event, to great administrative difficulties, adjudicating the rights to exemption of one institution or sector from another. Exemption from charges would hide the true cost of service provision. This could be particularly problematic in the event of private and public sector institutions operating in the same sector, where balance and transparency would need to be maintained in the interest of equal treatment. I am not inclined to consider particular institutions, but if I was this would not be the appropriate Bill. It does not deal with water charges.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am somewhat concerned at the Minister of State's comments. I wonder whether he has checked with all local authorities. Some local authorities are insisting that meters be installed on all newly constructed group water schemes. I understand also there is a directive from the Department in this regard before grants are drawn down. I would like greater clarity on this because meters are being installed on all new group water schemes. I have been involved in a number of group water schemes in recent times and this is the case. I agree with my colleague, Senator Paddy Burke, as regards schools and sporting facilities. Domestic water charges are being imposed on schools throughout the country by local authorities. They are illegal and if a court challenge was taken they would be found to be so. After all, schoolchildren are taking the equivalent of domestic supply from the system. They would use the same amount of water if they were at home on a given day. The same is true of sporting facilities. People use the water to drink, shower and wash themselves after partaking in a sport, which we should be encouraging, not discouraging by imposing charges on voluntary bodies such as clubs. I ask the Minister of State to examine this as a matter of urgency. We are always talking about trying to get people to participate in recreational facilities, which should be encouraged. Most of those facilities are operated on a voluntary, parish basis, particularly GAA clubs throughout the country. There is one in every parish and they find it hard enough to survive without the imposition of water charges. Perhaps the Minister and the Minister of State could examine this. If a challenge is taken, as will shortly happen, it will not stand up. After all it is the domestic water supply they are using.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am merely repeating what I said to Senator Paddy Burke. There is no opportunity in the Water Services Bill 2003 to allow me, the Government or the Opposition to introduce an amendment to exempt the institutions mentioned by the Senator from water charges. Absolutely nothing can be done. Lest I am giving the wrong impression, there is no intention to do that. In my earlier contribution I referred to the equity of the legislation. If the Government was to intervene in group water schemes, that would be seen to interfere with private schemes. The group water schemes are very much the responsibility of the trustees and their members. If they decide to put in meters, that is a matter for them, but I am not aware that is the case. I am not even anxious to pursue it because I do not want to interfere. Of course a bulk meter would make much sense so the trustees and members of the scheme could have the relevant data regarding the amount of water being used in a daily, weekly or monthly period. It would make sense if bulk meters were installed. However, there is no obligation now or on the enactment of this Bill, by way of regulation or otherwise, to insist on meters either on public or group water schemes. That is a matter for the group water schemes, but I am not aware of any of these.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 154:

In page 72, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) Meters or the data taken or read from them shall not be used for the purpose of calculating or imposing a charge on the end user.".

I am proposing this amendment because it is clear the Minister intends to introduce metering and charging for water. This is evident and the Minister of State did not clarify the position as regards group water schemes. Conditions are laid down for committees so all domestic and agricultural connections must be metered. That is one of the conditions imposed before they can draw down a grant. It is important we get clarity on that because I know of schemes that have suffered consequences on being told meters had to be installed on particular schemes. A certain percentage of the grant was withheld until such time as the meters were installed. A large number of such schemes have meters installed on the basis of conditions being set for the committees to abide by. We need more clarity in that regard.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As far as agriculture is concerned, Senator Bannon is quite right. Agriculture is non-domestic and users pay a water charge. There is no demand by the rural water section of my Department, and no instruction has gone out, to ensure that group water schemes or the individuals in such schemes are metered. I am quite definite about that.

I cannot accept this amendment. It has as its basis the misconception that the Bill provides for or facilitates the introduction of domestic water charges. I can only reiterate that it does not. Such a provision is not considered appropriate. It is not necessary to reiterate the Government's water pricing policy, which is based on an equitable share of the cost of water servicing being borne by non-domestic users, subject to there being no cross-subsidisation by that sector on domestic users. I regret I am unable to accept the amendment.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment is necessary to address situations where the volume of water used by a customer may differ from the volume of water supplied by a water services authority. The volume of water used may be affected by other factors such as leakage or illegal connections which are beyond the point of metering. In the circumstances the word "supplied" reflects more accurately the purpose of metering, which is to measure the volume of water supplied by a water services provider.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 157 is an alternative to amendment No. 156 and both may be discussed together by agreement.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 156:

In page 75, subsection (1), line 11, after "as" to insert "an Coiste Náisiúnta Seirbhísí Uisce Tuathúil or, in the English language,".

The amendment seeks to insert the Irish title of the committee. This issue arose recently during our discussions of the An Bord Bia Bill when the Minister for Agriculture and Food, while accepting the spirit of an amendment tabled by me, was, for various reasons best known to himself, unwilling to accept it. The situation which arises now is different in that the Minister of State has tabled an alternative amendment.

While I accept the similarities of the two amendments, perhaps the Minister of State would elaborate on his amendment. It is obvious he intends to include the Irish and English titles of the committee in the Bill.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senator McCarthy for tabling his amendment. I have been advised by the Office of the Attorney General that Senators are correct in that the Irish title of the National Rural Services Committee should be included in the Bill. However, as we are discussing the English language version of the Bill, as is practice, the committee will be known by the English version of its name as is the case since its establishment on a non-statutory basis in 1998. It is preferable in the circumstances that the English title of the committee appear in the text before the Irish title.

Accordingly, I ask Senators to accept amendment No. 157 which provides that the English language version of the title of the committee be included in the Bill followed by the Irish language version and to withdraw amendment No. 156.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 79 requires all water service providers other than a water services authority or its agent to be licensed subject to such classes of exception as the Minister may prescribe. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the introduction of modern design-build-operate procurement arrangements to the rural water sector will not cause confusion as to whether the contractor or contracting group water services scheme require to be licensed under this section.

It provides in effect for the avoidance of doubt that, notwithstanding the engagement of a contractor to provide water services on behalf of a group water services scheme, responsibility for delivery of the service in accordance with the prescribed standards remains with the scheme which shall, in turn, require to be licensed. The effect of the amendment will be to put beyond doubt that it is the responsibility of the group water services scheme rather than its contracted agent to obtain a licence to provide water services notwithstanding that they may be delivered by another person on their behalf under contract. It will be a matter for each group water services scheme to ensure that contract conditions are adequate to protect its interests in this regard.

Design-build-operate and bundling of individual schemes in the group scheme sector are currently being employed in many instances to put in place the maximum number of treatment plants in the shortest possible timeframe at optimum cost and effectiveness. Accordingly, it is prudent to clarify that it is a group water services scheme that requires a licence and not the contractor.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a technical amendment to correct a typographical error.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment replaces and expands the original section 92 to enable water services authority powers of direction in relation to connections to be applied not just to group water services schemes, but to individual water service consumers. It also provides for additional appeals provisions and introduces new provisions on future maintenance arrangements on shared connections to services.

The revised provision enables a water services authority to direct any person who is already connected to its water services to facilitate extension of those services to another person through his or her pipes. Similar directions may be made to facilitate connection of other persons premises to water storage facilities or related drains. As soon as a notice becomes enforceable, the water services authority is enabled to enter land and carry out the necessary works for this purpose. The cost of related works must be borne by the water services authority or the beneficiary of the connection in such proportion as the water services authority may decide.

In the interests of fairness, the powers of direction will not be applicable where they interfere unreasonably with the capacity of the notice recipient to carry on a business which is connected to the services in question. It is envisaged that the District Court could adjudicate on this matter in the context of an appeal for which provision is duly made. Responsibility for ongoing maintenance and renewal of a pipe into which a connection is made will remain with the owner of the pipe who may apportion any cost between themselves and the beneficiary of the new connection in proportion to the respective level of use of the pipe. Disputes about the apportionment of subsequent maintenance costs, or about compensation arising from an initial connection, will be referred to arbitration rather than to the courts to minimise delays in the appeals process.

The enforcement of a direction under this section will be done by means of a District Court injunction, as required. The revised powers of direction continue to enable a water services authority to require an unauthorised provider of water services to facilitate connection through its water works or waste water works. The provision of services by the water services authority will facilitate the orderly development of water services, in accordance with relevant strategic plans and in line with the intention of the original section 92.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the water services authority be financed by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government? Will it have to raise its own funds? Will it have to raise money by charging for water services? I ask the Minister of State to elaborate. I am somewhat concerned that it will impose charges if it wants funding. It is unrealistic that the groups availing of the authority's services will be asked to pay if it does not receive back-up funding from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or another body. I ask the Minister of State to clarify where the authority's funding will come from. I am concerned that it will be allowed to impose significant charges on the users of its services if it needs additional funding.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am somewhat confused and I ask the Senator to clarify his question. No charges will be imposed on non-domestic users. Perhaps the Senator is referring to works or maintenance to be carried out. I do not understand his question. If he repeats it, I will try to answer it.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

How will the water services authority be funded? It is a simple question.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It will be funded in a somewhat similar manner to the local government fund. The Senator is aware that the Government has substantially increased allocations to local authorities in recent years. An important part of the authority's income will come from charges for non-domestic use.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State is probably aware that there are huge shortfalls in funding to various local authorities throughout the country. Nine sewerage schemes for County Longford which have been approved are waiting for funding from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It is a small county with a population of just 31,000 people. A further six or seven schemes have been delayed at the planning stage. Approximately six towns and villages in County Longford have sewerage services. It is evident that there is a significant shortfall in funding. How will the schemes be funded? The proposed schemes at Ardagh, Abbeylara and Ballinalee were approved six years ago, but we are still waiting for funding for their construction. The example I have given relates to a small county, but it is typical of many local authority areas throughout the country.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is Senator Bannon talking about capital or current funding? I am proud of the Government's commitment to the development programme between 2000 and 2006. It has invested €4.4 billion in water schemes throughout the country. I am certain that the six schemes to which the Senator referred have not been delayed because of shortfalls in funding. Senators are aware that schemes have to pass through various stages after they have been approved in principle. It may be the case that the schemes in question have not yet reached the final stage, which is the appointment of a contractor. We are familiar with the preliminary reports. Perhaps there is a misconception among the public. People may believe that a scheme is ready to start after permission has been given by the Department to proceed with a preliminary report, but it does not happen like that. There are many plans. I am sure that sufficient funds have been made available, under the programme between 2000 and 2006, for the completion of every scheme that has been brought to the stage at which it is ready to commence.

The Senator may have been asking about current costs and shortfalls in local authorities. The Government can be proud of its record in that regard. I refer to the increase in the local government fund, especially since 1997. I will not go into the details of that. It is for another day. The substantial increases are in sharp contrast with the type of funding that was made available pre-1997.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind Senator Bannon that the House is considering amendment No. 160. His points should be relevant to the amendment.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State spoke about funding. Local authorities imposed development charges before their most recent AGMs and in the run-up to their last finance meetings. Members of the Minister of State's party throughout the country are angry about the imposition of the development charges, which were intended as a means of making up for the shortfall in local authority funding. The Minister of State's party suffered the consequences at the local elections more than it did at the European elections. That has been stressed by members of Fianna Fáil to whom I have spoken in County Longford, where it lost three seats, and in several other counties.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator's comments are not pertinent because they do not relate to the connection of the services.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Development charges have always been in place. It was a matter of streamlining them. The Government has not insisted on any development charges. Members can decide whether they want development charges. Senator Bannon knows, just as I do, that there is a multiplier effect if counties have additional development charges. It helps them, in no small way, to draw down additional funding. It is not an imposition on the part of the Government. Development charges have always been there. Members throughout the country took their own decisions. Some of them maintained the status quo and others increased development charges, which was in the best interests of the various local authorities.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This technical amendment removes a possible ambiguity from the text of the Bill. The current wording of section 93(1) provides that the extension to water service authorities of the powers under section 182 and Part XIV of the Planning and Development Act 2000 is only, in effect, for the purpose of acquiring land. While Part XIV of the 2000 Act deals specifically with the acquisition of land, section 182 of the Act does not provide for the acquisition of land per se. Instead, it enables local authorities to run water pipes, sewers and drains across land. In the circumstances, that may lead to interpretation difficulties. The purpose of this amendment, which proposes to delete the words "for that purpose", is to remove the link in section 93(1) between section 182 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the acquisition of land. Section 93(1) will now provide for the basic authority of a water services authority to acquire land. For the avoidance of doubt, the powers of section 182 and Part XIV of the Planning and Development Act 2000 will apply to a water services authority.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 163:

In page 87, subsection (1), line 41, after "arbitrator" to insert "whose decision shall be binding".

What is the point of engaging an arbitrator if his or her decision will not be binding? We need to make it clear in the Bill that the decision of the arbitrator will be binding on all parties. That would be a necessary improvement and perhaps the Minister of State would consider accepting the amendment.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The proposed amendment to insert a provision in section 96 to the effect that the determination of compensation by a duly appointed arbitrator in regard to compulsory acquisition of a waterworks or waste water works shall be binding is unnecessary as such provision is already included in the relevant legislation governing the appointment of arbitrators. The purpose of section 96 is to itemise the relevant grounds that an arbitrator must have regard to when assessing an appropriate amount of compensation in a particular case. The introduction of a reference to binding arbitration detracts from the main objective of the section. This provision is already included in the relevant legislation which governs the appointment of arbitrators.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State is saying the decision of the arbitrator is binding.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 166:

In page 89, subsection (1), line 24, to delete "The" and substitute "In circumstances of emergency, the".

I oppose this section because it paves the way for the privatisation of Ireland's water supply. We are debating Committee Stage but in all likelihood the Bill——

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are discussing amendment No. 166, to delete "The" and substitute "In circumstances of emergency".

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, but I also oppose the section and I wanted the opportunity to outline my reasons for that. This section paves the way for the privatisation of the water supply, and it may be used as a vehicle to introduce water charges. Section 99 effectively confers power on the Minister to amend provisions in this Bill to enable the introduction of charges. We have a major difficulty with that because it goes against the idea of the role of Members of this House. We are here to improve legislation etc., and if we permit this section to remain in the Bill, we will need to make it clear that it can only be used in exceptional circumstances. That is the reason the words "in circumstances of emergency" should be inserted in this section. It is difficult to speak to the amendment when I am opposing the section but perhaps the Minister of State would consider changing the section because I am not happy with it.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is necessary to first outline the general background to the section in order to set the context in which it has come about. The purpose of section 99 is to ensure that the legislation is not at any stage an impediment to the implementation of responses to situations of an emergency nature affecting the national interest. Such provision may be needed from time to time, for example, in situations such as those that arose in the foot and mouth disease crisis some years ago when statutory obligations to carry out certain monitoring or inspection functions may be contrary to the national interest in containing the spread of disease by minimising the instance of entry onto land.

It is envisaged that the provisions of section 99 would only be used in rare and exceptional circumstances which resulted in the Houses of the Oireachtas being sufficiently concerned to bring an order on this section into effect in the first instance. The procedures under the section are fully transparent and allow for maximum possible accountability via the Houses of the Oireachtas before an order is made. To this end, subsection (3) provides that a draft order must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and that the order shall not be made until each House has passed a resolution to approve it. The process proposed, therefore, subjects every order to full, due democratic process before it is made.

On amendment No. 166, I am concerned that the addition of a specific reference to an emergency in section 99 may, in the absence of a definition of what constitutes an emergency, cause unnecessary difficulties with the application of the section. It is essential that sufficient flexibility be available to enable the Oireachtas, not the Minister, to respond as appropriate and necessary in all circumstances. Furthermore, if the word "emergency" proposed by Deputy Bannon was to be defined, the application of the section may be restricted and hampered subsequently by a dispute as to whether a particular incident came within the scope of the section.

On the other hand, in the absence of such a reference it will be a matter for each House of the Oireachtas to adjudicate on the merits of any particular situation giving rise to a draft order under this section. Each House will be fully aware on a case by case basis of the gravity of the situation leading to the submission by the Minister of a draft order for approval. It is unnecessary to confine the scope of their deliberations by the insertion of an additional wording proposed in amendment No. 166.

That being said, it is useful to set out the general context in which the powers in this section may be applied. Amendment No. 167, therefore, provides that the purposes for which an order may be made under section 90 are for the prevention of risk to public health and the protection of the environment. The amendment inserts an unambiguous objective into the section the fulfilment of which will, as occasion demands, give rise to its application.

It is envisaged that the necessity to apply this section will be decided on a case by case basis. There will be no question of looking for blanket approval and it will be subject to the approval of both Houses. The insertion of amendment No. 167 will guide the deliberations of the Oireachtas as to whether the content of an order is appropriate in a given circumstance. It is a necessary but sufficient addition to subsection (1) without the need for further provision limiting the circumstances in which the section may be applied. On the basis of what I have outlined, and in the light of amendment No. 167, I respectfully suggest to Senator Bannon that he might reconsider amendment No. 167 and his opposition to the section. The term "emergency" must be left vague because, if defined, it would limit the scope of the Bill's application, leaving the legislation open to challenge. The Oireachtas makes decisions on the basis of the Minister's recommendations as power ultimately rests with it. Power resting solely with the Minister will only happen in exceptional circumstances, such as the foot and mouth disease outbreak.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This section states that legislation enacted before 1922 which may come into conflict with the Bill shall no longer have effect. Will the Minister of State inform the House what pre-1922 Acts could affect this Bill? Why is such a blind application being made in this case, as it could have unforeseen consequences? I understand the statute law revision unit of the Office of the Attorney General has conducted an audit of those pre-1922 statutes which might conflict with this Bill. As the correct approach would be to repeal directly the individual enactments, I oppose this section.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 100 provides that a provision of a pre-1922 statute will no longer have force of law where its application could frustrate the application of this Bill. Given the number, diversity and, in some cases, obscurity of pre-1922 legislation dating back to the middle of the 19th century, it is not possible to identify every individual element of the water services legislative code, despite thorough research by Department officials. Section 100 removes any possibility of remaining legislative provisions on the Statute Book which, if discovered at a later date, could be used to undermine the application of this Bill. Such an action would also undermine the wishes of the Oireachtas to provide up-to-date and appropriate regulations of the provision of water services. The Water Services Bill is intended to be the central and primary legislation for water services. It would be inappropriate if some unknown provision and obscure legislation could be resurrected at a later stage to interfere with this purpose, or attempt to impose 18th or 19th century legal provisions on a 21st century service. The repeal schedule confirms the extent of the efforts, through detailed research by Department officials, to unearth old legislation affecting water services. It is possible that obscure local Acts remain extant despite attempts to trace them. This section is a necessary safety valve to prevent a subsequent unearthing of such an Act being used to derail the Bill.

In accordance with the Government White Paper on Better Regulation, the Attorney General has undertaken a comprehensive review of the stock of legislation which pre-dates the establishment of the State. As a first step, the statute law revision unit in the Office of the Attorney General has carried out a stocktaking exercise to determine how many Acts from the various parliaments that administered Ireland between 1235 and 1922, almost 700 years, remain in force. So far, approximately 500 Acts have been discovered to be still in force from this period. A consultation process with Departments is underway to repeal or incorporate these provisions into the current Statute Book. This will help the Government to modernise pre-Independence laws and make Statute Law more coherent and accessible. Section 100 complements this process and will ensure the Water Services Bill is not undermined pending the completion of this review.

Although thorough research has been carried out, section 100 draws a line in the sand to ensure dormant laws do not affect the future application of the Bill. No other reason, devious or otherwise, is behind it and I recommend it to the House.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the last line of subsection (7) "persons" should read "person".

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment to the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977 enables the Minister to make regulations governing appeals to An Bord Pleanála under the Act in respect of decisions by a local authority on the licensing of trade effluent or sewerage discharges to waters under section 4. Section 6 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977 already provides for making regulations for licensing under section 4 and appeals under section 8 but does not contain explicit provisions for oral hearings and appeals procedures. The additional provisions enable regulations to be made for procedural matters for appeals, such as public notification requirements, time limits for the holding of oral hearings of an appeal, the conduct of oral hearing by a person appointed by the board or other related matters. Such provisions will bring the 1977 Act into line with provisions under section 67 of the Water Services Bill 2003 for appeals to An Bord Pleanála on the licensing of trade effluent discharges to sewers. It will facilitate streamlining and standardisation of respective legislative codes for ease of access and application.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment, particularly the reference to contributing towards the cost of investigations carried out by a local authority on an application, will involve another cost for individuals

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not an additional charge as those regulations are already in place. This amendment simply addresses procedural matters.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 172, 174, 176, 179, 181, 183, 186, 191 and 193 are related and may be taken together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 172:

In page 92, subsection (1), line 5 after "1977", to insert "(as amended by the Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Act 1990)".

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The purpose of this group of similar technical amendments to section 104 is to synchronise increased penalty provisions under the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977 with interim increases to those provisions, which have previously been provided for under section 24 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Act 1990. These amendments insert reference to the previous 1990 amendment Act into relevant provisions in order to avoid any doubt that the earlier increases are now overtaken by the provisions of section 104.