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

Amendment No. 1 is merely a technical amendment to correct a typographical error.

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

This was raised by Senator Bannon on Committee Stage and I indicated that I would be prepared to accept this amendment. In proposing it, I acknowledge that the amendment adds clarity to the intention of section 6 and I thank Senator Bannon for his contribution.

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

I thank the Minister of State for accepting this amendment. It was my purpose that the amendment would add clarity to the Bill.

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

I indicated on Committee Stage that I would be prepared to accept this amendment, which had been put forward by Senator Bannon. In proposing it, I accept that the revised wording is an improvement on the existing text and I am happy to take it on board.

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

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 18, line 50, to delete "five" and substitute "three".

I spoke on this in detail the last day. The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 requires prosecutions to be taken within a six month period. It is common for legislation to extend this to one or perhaps even two years. To extend it to five years is exceptional and I do not believe that it is warranted in this case. I plead with the Minister to take this point on board. If people are to be prosecuted, they have an entitlement to put their best case forward. When the evidence is up to five years old, that appears to be unacceptable. If six months is the benchmark, as laid down in the Act of 1851, then we should not divert from that by any more than three years. That is why I propose this amendment and I ask the Minister of State to consider it.

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

I second the amendment.

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

There are a number of situations where an offence which is being committed may not come to light for some time. For example, the damage caused by a breach of a duty of care regarding a discharge or damage caused to a pipe during building works may not be apparent until some time after a related offence was committed. In the circumstances, it is considered appropriate and necessary to provide for the maximum reasonable period of time, during which proceedings may begin following the committing of an offence. In this instance I believe that five years is a reasonable period of time. This five-year requirement is a standard provision in environmental legislation and is included in the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and the Waste Management Act 1996. It is a reflection of the nature of certain offences under such legislation which, as evidence of the resulting damage is not readily apparent, may not come to light for some time after they are perpetrated. The five-year limit provided for is intended to strike a balance between the rights of persons accused of committing an offence and the opportunity for supervisory and enforcement authorities to discover the offence and initiate a prosecution. As the limit is well established in the environmental legislation, I cannot agree to change that. Consistency across the legislative code is one of the objectives of the ongoing process of regulatory reform. An application of the five-year prosecution limit across the code of environmental legislation complements the same.

Following Committee Stage I gave serious consideration to the amendment tabled by Senator Bannon with a view to finding a compromise within the time available, but on the advice of my officials and the mere fact that this is not something new I am introducing but something already in place in the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and the Waste Management Act 1996, it is not a matter of being consistent but of being realistic. It could take some time before the damage showed up. In the circumstances, I regret I am unable to accept the amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 21, line 22, to delete "a scheme" and substitute "regulations".

It seems more appropriate to say that the Minister makes regulations rather than makes a scheme. That is the terminology used in most Bills, and perhaps the Minister might consider this amendment.

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

I second the amendment.

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

The purpose of subsection (3) is to remove any doubt about the power of the Minister to amend or revoke a scheme of financial assistance. It is unnecessary to insert such a provision regarding the amendment or revocation of regulations, as the necessary powers for that purpose are already provided for under section 15(3) of the Interpretation Act 1937. Section 17(1) provides for the making of a scheme in accordance with regulations. While the relevant regulations may in due course be amended or revoked in accordance with the provisions of the Interpretation Act 1937, technically speaking, there is no similar general power regarding schemes per se.

Subsection (3) is intended to remove any doubt in that regard by providing explicitly for the amendment or revocation of a scheme as required. It avoids the possibility of a scheme being struck down on a technicality and ensures the smooth transition from one phase of a scheme to the next in the certainty of due legal authority. I stated on Committee Stage that I was unable to accept this amendment on the advice of the Attorney General, and the same pertains today.

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

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 23, to delete lines 1 to 8.

This amendment was debated at length on Committee Stage in this House. It concerns notice by electronic mail. The Bill places a legal obligation on people to check their e-mail. That is totally unrealistic. I know that it is one of the methods, and the Minister present on the last occasion pointed out that there are several alternatives available to notify people. I believe there was a provision regarding another Bill whereby the spirit of this amendment was enshrined in legislation, and I hope that the Minister will forgive me for not being able to recount it. However, I appeal to his good nature to accept this amendment on the basis that it is totally unrealistic to place a legal obligation on anyone to check e-mail, particularly given the prevalence of spam in recent years.

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

I second the amendment.

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

Senator McCarthy is quite right to say that we debated this at length on Committee Stage. Many of us may not check our e-mail on an absolutely hourly basis, but a hard copy will go out too. I could accept the point made by Senator McCarthy if a hard copy were not being sent out to those who would receive their correspondence via electronic mail. However, in the circumstances, it is difficult to accept the proposition that a significant modern Bill destined to bring old, 19th century legislation into the 21st century should intentionally exclude provision for the service of notices by the most modern means of communications available.

The Bill has been drafted against the backdrop of an ongoing and comprehensive programme of regulatory reform, the intention of which is to make legislation generally more accessible and facilitate the conduct of administrative affairs in the most efficient manner possible. It would be contrary to the spirit of that programme to prevent the service of notices under the Bill by the most modern and efficient means. The point of providing for the delivery of notices by electronic means is to facilitate efficient and speedy delivery. Where a person requests, that a notice be provided to him or her electronically, it would reflect badly on a modernised regulatory process if that request could not be facilitated. In short, if that is requested, it will be delivered and forwarded by electronic mail. However, a hard copy will also be issued. I hope this explanation is sufficient for Senator McCarthy at least to consider withdrawing the amendment. Without opening another debate, I can assure him there will be a verifiable paper audit trail.

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

Considering the Minister's commitment to a verifiable paper audit trail, I have no choice but to withdraw the amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 28, line 34, after "(2)" to insert "and provided that the Minister is satisfied that democratic accountability for the function concerned will be ensured".

We debated this in some detail on a previous occasion. There is a real issue of accountability and transparency. It is important that this amendment be inserted. The section could result in the privatisation of all water services by their transfer from authorities to another prescribed person, which could be a private company, allowing for no element of accountability. There would not be any democratic controls over the process to ensure such accountability. In the era in which we live, with its very strong emphasis on accountability and transparency in the public sector, for example, in the Freedom of Information Act 1997 and the various methods used in the pursuit of transparency and accountability, it is important that we lead by example in legislative terms. I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment.

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

I second the amendment.

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

The purpose of section 27 is to provide for the transfer of functions from a water services authority to the Minister or other prescribed body, or from the Minister to a water services authority or prescribed body as required. It is not intended that the level of democratic accountability for any transferred function should be diminished. Subsection (1) provides for the authorisation of such a transfer of functions by regulations rather than, for example, by administrative order. The powers of the Minister to authorise a transfer of function are governed by section 18(5), which provides that any regulation made by the Minister must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and either House may pass a resolution to annul it within 21 days. The Minister is accountable to the Oireachtas therefore in terms of any proposal to transfer functions and it is a matter ultimately for the Oireachtas to decide whether democratic accountability for any function is lessened by a regulation under section 18(1). I gave some consideration to the case made by Senator McCarthy on Committee Stage but for the reasons I have outlined I cannot accept this amendment.

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

Amendments Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive, are related and may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 28, line 39, after "Minister" to insert ", save for functions associated with or connected with the agreement or imposition of water service charges".

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

I second the amendment.

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

The purpose of these amendments is to incorporate transparency into the Bill by ensuring that the Minister cannot delegate his duties of work to other persons or bodies. The legislation provides for the issuing of licences for which I presume a cost will be involved — for example, a body or group will have to pay an annual fee to renew its licence. If the Minister wants to introduce charges, it is important that he should do so himself rather than be able to claim that the imposition of such charges was the work of another body or authority. There is a responsibility on Government to be transparent and let any charges introduced by the Minister be on his own head.

We have a situation where many State bodies are being broken up and handed over to private and semi-private companies and all of those changes have involved charges. I fear this is the route the Minister wishes to pursue. On the Order of Business I observed Senator MacSharry, a Government Senator, calling for a debate on the funding of local authorities and I could detect the prospect of the introduction of water charges.

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

Such charges were never mentioned.

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

Those on the Government benches are calling for a debate on the issue.

Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I must ask the Senator to restrict himself to the substance of the amendment.

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

Certainly, I always do. This issue is relevant to the substance of the amendment——

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

It has nothing to do with it.

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

——when we hear Senators calling for debate on charges and so on. This is all about costs.

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

The Senator is indulging in Inspector Clouseau behaviour.

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

There was a long debate on this issue on Committee Stage during which I outlined clearly that the Bill does not deal with water charges, nor is it a vehicle to introduce charges at some later date. Water charges are provided for separately under other primary legislation, namely, the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1997, which precludes charges for domestic water services. Even if the Government wanted to introduce provisions purporting to change these existing arrangements, it is impossible to do so by regulation and recent case law attests to this. I reassure Senator Bannon and all Senators in this House that the proposed legislation is not a mechanism to introduce water charges by regulation in the future and such charges are not part of the Government's agenda. The proposed amendments are therefore unnecessary.

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

If the Minister is honest in his reassurances that this Bill will not result in the imposition of water charges, there is no reason he should not accept this amendment. That is what the amendment is all about.

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

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 29, line 19, after "services" to insert ", save for functions associated with or connected with the agreement or imposition of water service charges,".

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

I second the amendment.

Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 11 and 28 are related and may be taken together by agreement.

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

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 30, to delete lines 37 to 39.

The amendment proposes the deletion of lines 37 to 39 of the Bill as they serve no real purpose. Perhaps the Minister will consider accepting it.

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

I second the amendment.

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

The common thread running through these amendments is that they are based on the misconception that the Bill either does or should contain provisions on water charges. As this issue arose on several occasions during the Committee Stage debate and again this morning I thought the matter had been comprehensively dealt with. However, I will reiterate the position.

The Bill is primarily designed to regulate the delivery and supervision of water services, to enable operating standards to be set and public health and environment to be protected. It deals literally and metaphorically with the nuts and bolts of water services delivery. Water charges are an integral part of the local government financial matrix and are inextricably linked to the broader issue of public financing. It makes sense, therefore, to provide for them by way of financial provisions legislation.

As I stated earlier, the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1997 precludes the charging of domestic users for water services. This is in line with Government policy. There is no intention on the part of Government to change that scenario. The charging of commercial users for water services is provided for in existing legislation. The Bill does not propose to amend that position. The Minister, during the course of the Second Stage debate, went to great lengths to assure Senators that the Bill would not in any way change the current situation regarding charges. I, too, have given similar assurances. I hope the Senator will accept that the amendments are unnecessary and somewhat inappropriate. If, however, he decides to press the amendments I will be opposing them not for the sake of opposition but for the reasons outlined this morning and on previous occasions.

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

Why does the Minister of State have such difficulty accepting the amendments, which seek to guarantee the public that the system will not be privatised? Given his statement that no water charges will be introduced and that the system will not be privatised why then does he have a difficulty accepting the amendments? I have no doubt that the licensing system proposed in the Bill will be used for the privatisation of water services. The legislation puts in place the structure required to do so and passes responsibility in that regard from the local authorities to the new water services authority. That is a good way of disengaging the two in terms of future privatisation.

The amendments seek to ensure privatisation will not come on stream in the future. The Government reneged on many of the promises it made prior to the last general election. How can we trust it on this one?

Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 13 is an alternative to amendment No. 32 and both are related to amendment No. 12. It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 32 together by agreement.

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

I promised on Committee Stage to consider technical and drafting amendments put forward by Senators regarding the deletion of section 31(19) and its substitution by way of a new section later in the Bill in order to avoid non-textual amendment of the 1885 Act.

The suggested amendments are in keeping with current drafting practice and I am happy to take them on board. However, for administrative convenience, I propose to insert the new section in Part 8, Chapter 2 with other miscellaneous amendments. I thank Senator McCarthy for bringing the matters to my attention.

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

I thank the Minister of State for accepting the amendments. There is an onus on us to ensure we enact good legislation. It is positive when amendments which improve the content of legislation are accepted, be those amendments textual, technical or otherwise. Our primary objective is the pursuit of good legislation.

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

Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 32 are being discussed together. Is the Minister of State accepting amendment No. 13 tabled in my name? The amendment is designed to avoid non-textual amendments to the 1885 Act thereby modifying it without changing its wording. Amendment No. 13 seeks to ensure we adhere to best practice in that regard. I thank the Minister of State for his indication that he is taking on board amendment No. 13.

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

The Senator will appreciate, from his experience in the House, that it is not possible for me to accept both amendments. I am including the spirit of his amendment in the new text.

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

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 40, line 16, to delete "executive" and substitute "reserved".

I raised this point on the last occasion we discussed this legislation. A critical issue arises in terms of how local authorities do their work as regards the functions of elected members and officials. Many people, of whom I am one, believe the executive has too much power. Giving powers to unelected officials thereby enhancing the role of county and city managers takes from the role of members. The large turnout in the recent local elections demonstrates a strong belief in the local government system and places enormous trust and faith in the elected members of local authorities, of whom there are almost 900 throughout the country.

The amendment seeks to ensure that difference is narrowed somewhat. Legislation recently enacted removed powers from councillors. Councillors not alone from the Opposition side but from the Government side are aggrieved about that. The representative bodies such as LAMA, the General Council of County Councils, the AMAI and various local government constituent interest groups have made strong representations on the matter. This provision is also applicable to other legislation. A provision in recent legislation took from elected members and gave to county managers the power to set the price for refuse collections. Local authorities, which are under financial pressure will, in their next budget, set prices at unrealistic levels. They may set them at levels above and beyond what elected members would set them at. It is in these areas that accountability, transparency and democracy comes into local government. I appeal to the Minister of State to accept the amendment.

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

I second the amendment.

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

I dealt comprehensively with this issue on Committee Stage. I accept that it is a fundamental matter of concern to everybody with an interest in the role and functions of local government. I acknowledge Senator McCarthy's concerns in this regard. I assure the House that I am not undermining the role of elected representatives, or excluding them from the process, by providing that the compilation of water services strategy plans will be an executive function. Members will be included in the process. It is a question of pitching their input at an appropriate level.

Water services strategy plans are management and operational plans, in effect, rather than policy plans per se. The primary role of the plans is to outline the level of demand for water services in the functional area of each water services authority. The plans will detail the proposed level of response to the demand. The strategy planning process will be based on a partnership between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the water services authorities. The bodies will ensure that national and local water services agencies are fully synchronised. The relationship between the organisations complements the role of the Minister, who has overall responsibility for supervising the provision of national water services.

The system will help to ensure that plans for adjoining functional areas are properly integrated and that potential synergies and efficiencies are maximised. It will guard against cumulative impacts, which might have an adverse effect on sustainable development and environmental protection in the surrounding region. The Minister will have the final say about what goes into a water services strategy plan. It would not be appropriate, therefore, to involve members of local authorities directly although they will be involved in the process indirectly. As I said earlier, the involvement of members of local authorities in planning for water services will be at a different level. Their input will take place more appropriately at a broader strategic level, in the context of their input into planning and development issues affecting their local areas.

The Bill requires water services authorities to have regard to proper planning and the sustainable development of their areas when they are compiling water services strategy plans. In particular, they must have regard to the relevant county development plans, regional or spatial planning guidelines, housing strategies, special amenity orders and river basin management plans. It is envisaged that consultation will take place at strategic policy committees. It is appropriate to have consultation at that level, in the course of making the plan. It will facilitate co-ordination with strategic policy issues affecting the functional areas of water services authorities. The input that will be pitched at this level will ensure that the strategic overview of councillors is ultimately taken into account in the formulation of water services strategy plans. I am sure county managers will consider the views expressed by members of local authorities when they are preparing the water services strategy plans.

I reiterate that section 36(3), which states that the making of a water services strategy plan is an executive function, simply reflects the practical distinction that exists in many organisations between operational functions and higher level policy development functions. Similarly, one can distinguish between the management team and the board of directors in a large modern company. I stress that I understand the concerns of Senator McCarthy and other Senators. In this instance, it would not be appropriate for the making of a water services strategy plan to be a reserved function. I hope Senator McCarthy will accept the explanation I have given, bearing in mind that members of local authorities will have an indirect input. It is not a question of sidelining members, as they will have an important role to play in county development plans and strategic policy committees.

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

I acknowledge the Minister of State's reply. I would like to speak about the consultation that may or may not take place between a county manager and the members of a local authority. If the decision is an executive one, it will be taken by the county manager irrespective of the views of members. This is particularly true of contentious issues, such as refuse collection services, which will be an extremely controversial issue on Cork County Council. It was controversial in the past when councillors had the power to set the cost of such services.

Perhaps one could examine the granting of planning permission and the allocation of houses in this context. The Minister of State referred to a practical distinction between the members and the manager. Those of us who have served on local authorities have appealed to county managers on behalf of constituents who have applied for planning permission or are looking for a house. All we can do is make representations, or attempt to influence the manager's decision.

The critical issue is the role of members of local authorities, which has been reduced somewhat by recent legislation. I will raise this issue every time this House debates Bills that have a direct impact on county and city councillors. I appreciate the Minister of State's remarks and I will withdraw the amendment on that basis. I will make this case when we are dealing with the issue of executive and reserved functions, irrespective of the legislation under discussion.

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

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 51, line 21, after "damage" to insert ", either directly or indirectly,".

This reasonable amendment would add to the standing of the Bill. I propose that the words "either directly or indirectly" be added to the section. As I said on Committee Stage, such a provision would strengthen the Bill and make it clearer. I ask the Minister of State to accept it.

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

I second the amendment.

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

The wording of section 45, to which amendment No. 15 refers, was altered on Committee Stage. It now provides that "a person who causes any damage" to a pipe "is guilty of an offence". The change addressed the intention of Senator Bannon's original Committee Stage amendment, which raised concerns about damage being caused to a pipe indirectly by the actions of a third party. Senator Bannon argued that such a person should also be liable. The amendment proposes to add a reference to damage being caused "directly or indirectly". Such a reference is unnecessary. If somebody causes damage, it is irrelevant whether they did so "directly or indirectly". The introduction of such a distinction would frustrate prosecutions and provide an unintended avenue to escape conviction. The Bill as it stands addresses the intention of Senator Bannon's original amendment. The Bill would be weakened, which I do not consider to be Senator Bannon's intention, if we were to go further by inserting "directly or indirectly".

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

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 51, lines 28 and 29, to delete "Unless otherwise provided for in this Act or in any other enactment, no" and substitute "No".

I propose the deletion of the initial words of this section. Legislation is supposed to bring greater clarity to matters but section 46, as drafted, does not do so. I pointed this out when we discussed a similar amendment on Committee Stage. We need clarity because the section is said to mean one thing and then it is said to mean something else. It goes without saying that another enactment may say something different — it may muddy the waters. I ask the Minister of State to bring clarity to the Bill by agreeing to delete this conditional statement.

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

I second the amendment.

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

As I pointed out when we debated this matter on Committee Stage, the amendment purports to remove any possibility that another provision in this Bill or another enactment might provide for a change in the status quo established under section 46 and enable alternative consultation requirements to apply. The amendment is not considered appropriate. On the contrary, it is considered reasonable to acknowledge that such a change could occur. The tightening of the provision as proposed could and would, in any event, be overruled 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 and would necessitate a specific amendment to take section 46 into account. While I appreciate the intention of Senator Bannon's amendment, I consider it to be an unnecessary administrative exercise.

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

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 52, lines 32 and 33, to delete all words from and including "that" in line 32 down to and including "functions" in line 33.

This section provides for ministerial discretion, which I would have thought is inherent in every power. Why are we providing for ministerial discretion in the Bill? Am I to presume that the other powers of the Minister in the Bill are not to be exercised at his discretion? This is something the Minister elaborated on somewhat the last day but I was not happy with his response. He gave a commitment that he would consult with his advisers. Perhaps he might give a more positive response this morning and accept this amendment.

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

I second the amendment.

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

Senator Bannon is correct that I indicated on Committee Stage that I would consider this amendment and seek advice on it and I have done so. I reviewed the amendment on the assumption that it would be re-tabled but I point out to the House that if the amendment was accepted, the wording of the section would state "so as to require the Minister to consult with any Minister of the Government prior to agreeing any regulations". There is a potential ambiguity in that regard in that "any" might be interpreted as one or all Ministers. Such ambiguity would lead to difficulty in the interpretation of this section. In any event, a requirement for the Minister to consult with all members of the Government before making regulations would not be necessary and would place an unnecessary administrative burden on all concerned. In light of that explanation, I hope the Senator will reconsider his position regarding the amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 53, line 16, after "agreement" to insert "in relation to the discharge of its functions under this Act".

As I said the last day, we need to delimit the scope of agreements into which a water services authority can enter. I propose that it may only enter into agreements which relate to the discharge of its functions under the Act. As was the case with the previous amendment, the Minister promised that he would seek further advice on this issue and in that regard perhaps he would consider accepting the amendment.

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

I second the amendment.

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

The purpose of section 50, to which amendment No. 18 refers, is to enable a water services authority to enter into an agreement with any person to provide water services infrastructure with a view to that person subsequently transferring ownership of it to the water services authority. The agreement referred to does not relate directly to the discharge of its functions per se by a water services authority. On the other hand, however, the specific purpose of the agreement is already set out in detail in subsections (2) and (3). The amendment is unnecessary.

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

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 53, line 18, after "person" to insert ", for a fixed charge,".

As I pointed out the last day, this is a very important amendment, particularly in these times. We are all familiar with the spiralling costs of large and small scale contracts entered into by this and the previous Government at the expense of the taxpayer. We only have to look at what is happening with the cost overruns in the contracts for roads infrastructure. We are told that this country does not have the best system of tendering and some would say our tendering systems are corrupt. I propose that the Bill should stipulate that all contracts entered into must be fixed price contracts. It is important to have more transparency in this area.

We pointed out the procedures that are in place in local authorities with regard to opening tenders etc. It is important that we have more transparency and that we have fixed price tenders. The overruns are unacceptable because they are at the expense of the taxpayer and I tabled the amendment to bring some control back into this area. There could be five, six or even ten tenders for a particular job and it is not fair on those who are rejected, who may have put in a more realistic tender, to discover subsequently that costs under the successful tender had increased by up to 50%. That is unacceptable and it is time for us, as legislators, to take a stand. That is the reason for the amendment.

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

I second the amendment.

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

I understand the principle behind the amendment and the case being made by Senator Bannon, but I wish to outline the reasons I cannot accept it. We had a long discussion on this amendment on Committee Stage and while peripheral issues were raised at that time, I understand the substantial issue has been dealt with fully.

I reiterate my view that the insertion of a provision restricting agreements under the section to fixed charge agreements is unnecessarily restrictive and could pre-empt any ongoing development in public procurement policy. I point out to the House that the introduction of fixed charge agreements would pose the question as to the number of tenders we might receive. There may not be too many and competition is the spice of trade. It is important to have a competitive edge in the free market which ensures that we get the best price.

This Bill is not intended to address public procurement policy and inclusion of a requirement for fixed cost agreements in subsection (2) may lead to a lack of synchronisation between section 50 and what is current public procurement policy. I cannot countenance a situation where procurement policy for water services is out of line with other areas of public procurement policy. It must be applied in a uniform manner and not in a piecemeal way across the different sectors. Regardless of the changes that may be needed in public procurement policy, this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle through which to undertake it. It would have to be dealt with at another time when decisions are being taken on any alterations to public procurement policy. I understand but do not share the Senator's concerns for controls over costs as they are exercised within the framework of a uniform public procurement policy. If this amendment were accepted, it would mark the end of pc sums and contractors would not tender. Public procurement policy has served us well in the provision of water services. This Bill is not the vehicle for any changes, as they will only occur if the public procurement policy is amended.

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

I support the Minister of State's comments as I too query the value of introducing fixed charges. My experience of looking at tenders as a member of a local authority is not the same as Senator Bannon's. I have seen the high and the low tenders. Contractors may not tender if a fixed charge is introduced. Senator Bannon should withdraw this amendment as it is against the public procurement policy that has served us well.

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

The purpose of this amendment is to end cronyism, which is rife in this country. Members of the public mistrust the format used for tendering. It is their money that is spent to cover project overruns. A halt must be called to overruns of 30% to 40% where expenses are incurred to finish a particular contract. The Minister of State claims that one particular Bill cannot be singled out to do this. However, it must be seriously examined by Government.

The power of upkeep of primary and secondary roads was taken from the elected local authority members and given to the National Roads Authority. This and other quangos meet behind closed doors and are not accountable, while their annual reports inform of overruns. The onus is on the Government to improve the system in the interest of the taxpayers as they bear the brunt of overrun costs. Members of the public are crying out for these project overruns to be halted. It is not just in roads construction but also in telecommunications, bus and rail service projects with vast amounts being spent on administration, which is the main cause of wastage. Rather than spending money on much needed classrooms and educational services for pupils, it is spent on administration and under the heading "miscellaneous costs". The Government must ensure that those miscellaneous costs are teased out from the various bodies and a halt brought to wastage.

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

While Senator Bannon did not intend it, the words "cronyism" and "corruption" — I am not sure if "nepotism" was used — are sweeping. It is important that no impropriety arises out of the public procurement process. I have always recognised the importance of the private sector as the driving force in the economy. If allegations are made about the process, they should be substantiated. All Members who served on local authorities would have been present when tenders were opened. Such a process would have conformed to the provisions outlined in the 1994 public procurement booklet. Any instances where this did not occur should be brought to attention.

Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment Nos. 20 and 21 are related and may be taken together by agreement.

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

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 66, line 29, after "or" to insert "at any time".

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

I second the amendment.

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

This is a technical amendment to clarify the subsection on licensing of discharges to sewers. The purpose of this amendment is to take into account circumstances where it might be used in a negligent manner. There are circumstances where the licences have been abandoned. Renewal of licences can be a vehicle to introduce charges. The Minister of State has not elaborated on whether there will be a cost for the registration and annual renewal of these licences with the water service authority. It will apply to large group water schemes with membership over 50 participants. However, this could be reduced to include group schemes with membership of just three participants. My amendment proposes to avoid the potential for this development. On Committee Stage, the Minister of State agreed to re-examine this amendment.

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

The provision in subsection 7, which is based on the existing provisions for trade effluent licensing under the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977 and will be consolidated into this Bill, is intended to weed out old dormant licences and ensure that all licences are relevant and current. It is possible that a particular operation may be legitimately licensed for occasional, sporadic discharge over a four year period but may not be discharging 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 have ceased to have effect. The existing provision, based on the 1977 Act, has stood the test of time. The three year requirement proved to be effective and has not caused any operational difficulties. Why fix it if it is not broken?

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

Will licences be renewed on an annual basis? Licences are all about privatisation of services. With its new motto, the Government is privatising several services, as well as the water services. The Government copies policies from the current and past British Governments. What people want is a proper water service. The current service is fairly good but there is a need to improve sewerage systems throughout the country. The Minister of State might indicate if there will be a cost involved in the licensing operation of the water services. People would like to know if another stealth tax is to be introduced by the Minister and the wool pulled over their eyes for the umpteenth time. I have lost track of the number of broken promises and stealth taxes introduced by the Government.

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

The Senator should stick to the amendment.

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

We are not looking over our shoulder. We are very realistic and aware that there is legislation elsewhere which might be helpful in drafting our legislation. We have drawn a line in the sand and are consolidating legislation in a Bill of some 100 sections. I made it clear last week that if some legislation were to turn up, even going back as far as 1250, we would draw a line in the sand. To be fair to the Department and all concerned, this is fine legislation that will serve us well for many years.

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

This is merely a drafting amendment to correct a minor error.

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

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 71, line 5, after "appeal" to insert "in whole or in part".

There does not appear to be any middle ground. As drafted, this section appears to limit the power to allow or refuse an appeal. My amendment will add greater clarification to the section. The Minister of State said he would review the amendment with his officials and I trust he will give a positive response today.

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

I second the amendment.

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

Senator Bannon is right. We discussed this on Committee Stage in conjunction with a Government amendment to give greater flexibility to An Bord Pleanála in dealing with appeals regarding trade effluent licensing under section 63. The revised provision in subsection (2), as amended on Committee Stage, now enables the board either to allow or refuse an appeal altogether or, alternatively, separately to direct a water services authority as to the granting of a licence or the variation of a licence by amendment, deletion or addition of specified conditions. That Government amendment accepted on Committee Stage essentially covers the point raised by Senator Bannon in his amendment. If he reads section 66 as amended on Committee Stage he will see clearly that the intention of his amendment is now covered in the Bill.

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

Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 74, line 1, after "unoccupied" to insert "or comprises of a rented dwelling,".

It clearly should be the duty of any landlord to ensure that this section is complied with. It is very unfair to impose these burdens on tenants of rented houses. If one has a property, or is the owner of a farm or a house, it is one's duty to see that everything is in order because one has responsibility for what one owns, whether it be material goods or a bank account, for example. One should be in control and know exactly the state of affairs in one's own business. The responsibilities of an owner cannot be imposed on an occupier of a rented property. Everyone should accept the responsibilities of ownership.

If we accepted more responsibilities in this country, in every area, we would have a better country. This is a shifting of responsibilities to other parties. One can prove that an owner is accountable or has control and if something goes wrong, it is the owner or landlord who should be penalised. He or she should deal with the people accommodated and if they break the law, it is up to him or her to take action. The lines of communication and contact should be directly between the owner or landlord and the State.

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

I second the amendment.

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

I reiterate my position as outlined on Committee Stage. If we were to accept these amendments they would place an unreasonable obligation on the owner of a premises to ensure that the actions of a tenant would conform with the requirements under section 70 which deal with the general duties of an owner or an occupier. This would mean that if the tenant were responsible for any damage, an unreasonable burden would be placed on the owner. It is appropriate that liability for breach of a duty of care should be placed fairly and squarely on the perpetrator of that action rather than on a third party. It would be unfair to a landlord to hold him or her responsible when, for example, a tenant discharges a noxious substance into a sewer which could cause a risk to human health. In such a case the tenant should clearly be held liable for his or her actions. To provide otherwise would place a landlord in an invidious position and could leave him or her open to abuse of such a provision by a tenant in the course of a tenancy dispute.

The current wording offers the most direct means of enforcement of section 70 and therefore the most direct means of ensuring that human health and the environment are adequately protected. I am loath to introduce any provision which would blur these lines of enforcement and in the circumstances cannot accept the amendment.

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

Tomorrow we will be discussing the Residential Tenancies Bill 2003 which makes provision for disputes which arise between tenants and landlords. This would cover the matters raised by Senator Bannon in his amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 74, line 8, after "unoccupied" to insert "or comprises of a rented dwelling,".

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

I second the amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 75, to delete lines 41 to 47, to delete page 76, and in page 77, to delete lines 1 to 11.

I propose this amendment because it is clear that the Minister intends to introduce metering and charges for water. He may say I am a doubting Thomas because he has given certain assurances. However, we are talking about the Minister, the water services authority and the transfer of powers to that body. The amendment seeks to safeguard the interests of the public against the reintroduction of water charges. I have documentary evidence that circulars and memorandums have been sent from the Department to local authorities throughout the country in regard to the reintroduction of domestic water charges. I can produce evidence of two recent memorandums to local authorities and I am forewarning the public on the matter.

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

I second the amendment.

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

I hope there was no forgery involved.

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

The intention of section 72 is to give water services providers adequate powers to install meters and to have access to them subsequently for maintenance or taking readings. It is based generally on existing provisions in section 68 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act 1878 and section 14 of the Waterworks Clauses Act 1863, which have been repealed and consolidated in this Bill.

Such a framework of provisions is essential to enable water service providers to measure the value of services provided and protect the integrity of their services from criminal interference for the purpose of fraudulent diversion of supplies. Provision of meters will also play a vital role in monitoring supplies for water conservation purposes. I pointed out in the House on a number of occasions that at present the loss of water from the time it leaves its source until it arrives in the taps is approximately 50%. It is above this figure in some local authorities and below it in others.

It is vitally important that if meters are required to try to ascertain where water is being lost, conservation should take place and funding should be provided to protect this essential supply, they should be provided. It is not intended to introduce water charges for domestic use. Similar provisions operate in respect of other public utilities such as electricity and gas supply. All of these are essential prerequisites to the provision of well managed and efficient services.

The Bill seeks to facilitate and regulate the provision of water services. As I said earlier, it deals literally and metaphorically with the nuts and bolts of the delivery of water services. Metering is central to the delivery of water services. It is essential, therefore, to provide for the powers necessary to implement a proper metering policy from both the perspective of the water services provider and consumers. Section 72 addresses these requirements.

Senator Bannon referred last week to metering of group water schemes. This is a matter for the group water schemes. If the group water trustees decide there should be meters, it is a matter for them. Group water schemes, which were helped by funding from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, have served us well over the years. If they insist there should be metering, it is a matter for them. We have no intention of interfering in this regard. No one will be more surprised than me if Senator Bannon can produce the circulars that are alleged to have been issued by my Department. I will deal with the matter if the Senator provides me with the circulars. I will refrain from comment until I see the circulars. There will be opportunities in the House in the future to clarify the matter.

Meters can help to pin down leakage and stem wastage, which will reduce the operating costs of group schemes. If this is the intention, it is only right and proper that they should be allowed to continue without any interference from my Department.

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

I support what the Minister of State said. There was a discussion on the Order of Business this morning about water wastage, including leakages and old water schemes. A Senator described major leakages in the midlands. If the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government means anything, it must mean it is concerned about this issue. Metering is one way of dealing with the problem. I do not understand why Senator Bannon is opposed to the installation of meters. I am very familiar with group water schemes in County Galway, which has the largest number of group schemes in the country, where meters have been used to try to deal with the issue. One of the problems with group water schemes is that there is not enough people to maintain or supervise them and, therefore, leakages can go unnoticed for days. It is important to take whatever steps are necessary to deal with leakages and wastage of water. I am reassured by what the Minister of State said in this regard.

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

The Minister of State spoke at great length in this regard. Local authorities throughout the country are working at a furious pace to put in place a programme in respect of metering supplies. This is an ongoing feature within local authorities. Some people are singled out in year one, year two, year three and year four. We hear much from time to time about EU directives. I am afraid the Government will use EU directives and the fact that we will not get various EU grants as an excuse when it introduces water charges in one or two years' time. There have been discussions at local authority level that we may not be able to draw down the maximum grants from Europe for sanitary services and so on if there is not some charge on domestic water supplies.

I would appreciate it if the Minister would clear the air on whether there will be a shortfall in EU funding if we do not implement an EU directive to charge for water. The nationwide water conservation programme is money well spent. We need an update on how successful the programme has been to date. I have been informed that, following recent studies, approximately 47% of all water processed in reservoirs, etc., is unaccounted for. If this is the case, is the water conservation programme a success?

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

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 92, line 33, after "arbitrator" to insert "whose decision shall be binding".

This amendment relates to responsibilities. As I said previously, what is the point of engaging an arbitrator if his or her decision is not binding? It is all about taking responsibility and deciding where the buck stops. We need to make clear in the Bill that the decision of the arbitrator will be binding on all parties. We have seen Ministers fall from time to time because they were blamed for decisions. We have seen Ministers across Europe resigning because the buck stops with them. As the buck stops with the arbitrator, it is important to ensure that his or her decision is final. At the end of the day, we want people to take responsibility for their decisions. There have been several examples of no one taking responsibility. A typical example is what happened in Wexford. A typical example which has been highlighted on the Joe Duffy radio show, the news and elsewhere concerns the Taoiseach's signature on letters of one kind or another.

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

The Senator should stick to the amendment.

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

Nobody takes responsibility. The issue should not be who delivered the envelopes to the particular councillor-——

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

The issue is who delivered the water.

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

——but whose typewriter or computer was used to print, forge and transfer the Taoiseach's signature.

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

They maintain it was not a forgery.

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

I remind the Senator we are discussing amendment No. 27.

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

It is all about responsibility.

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

I wonder how many Senators use Oireachtas envelopes.

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

Nobody has taken responsibility in this case.

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

Senator Bannon, we are on amendment No. 27.

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

The decision of the arbitrator, when appointed, should be final and binding.

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

The Senator is walking on water.

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

I do not mean it as a pun but the Senator's argument does not hold much water.

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

That is shallow.

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

We should go with the flow.

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

Few of us could put a hand on our hearts and say we are perfect.

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

There may be a whirlpool awaiting the Minister.

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

It did not surprise me that the Senator deviated to other issues. I was not expecting this amendment as I thought I had explained the matter fully on Committee Stage. I thought the Senator had accepted my assurance during the debate that the proposed additional provision is unnecessary as the provision is already included in the relevant legislation governing the appointment of arbitrators. The relevant provision is contained in section 6 of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919, which provides for the intention of amendment No. 27 to section 96. I realise that I, like the Senators, must abide by the rules and will refrain from making any other contribution in regard to the issues raised.

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

I second the amendment.

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

Amendment No. 30 is an alternative to amendment No. 29. If amendment No. 29 is negatived, amendment No. 30 cannot be moved. The amendments may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 94, to delete lines 17 to 28.

Although I am not happy with all of the Bill, it is likely it will be passed as it is a numbers game at the end of the day. This section effectively confers power on the Minister to unilaterally suspend or amend provisions of the Bill. As a legislator, I have difficulty with this as it goes against the idea behind our role in the House. If we are to permit this section, we need to make it very clear that it can only be used in exceptional circumstances. The Minister acknowledged the wording was weak and, having consulted with those with experience in these matters, I feel the amendments would strengthen the section and hope the Minister can accept them.

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

I second the amendment.

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

The purpose of section 99 is to ensure the Water Services Act 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 arose during 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 or exceptional circumstances which resulted in the Houses of the Oireachtas being sufficiently concerned to bring an order under 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, therefore, section 99(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.

I reiterate this will only be used in rare and exceptional circumstances and it will be a matter for both Houses to decide. The value of this section will only come to light in the event that its provisions are needed. While we hope they will not be, we are realists and realise they may be. In the meantime, it is essential that section 99 is retained.

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

The Minister might elaborate on emergency orders. When a water services authority is in place, do the powers rest with the Minister?

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

The Minister will not have the powers but will have the responsibility to bring an order before the Houses. However, it will be a matter for the Houses to decide whether to accept it. Even in exceptional circumstances — foot and mouth disease is a practical example — and even if the Oireachtas were not sitting, it would be a matter of recalling the Dáil and Seanad so the decision would be taken by both Houses.

We are sometimes criticised for taking powers away from Members and giving them to the Executive. In this case, the powers are being retained by the Members of both Houses. When Senator Bannon reflects on this, I think he will agree. I am not opposing this for the sake of opposition but because it is the right thing to do and in the national interest.

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

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 94, to delete lines 29 to 38.

The amendment concerns section 100 which Fine Gael totally opposed on Committee Stage and again opposes on Report Stage. The section effectively states that any pre-1922 legislation which conflicts with the Bill will no longer have effect. Will the Minister tell the House whether there are any pre-1922 statutes which conflict with the Bill? He previously referred to legislation going back to the 12th and 13th centuries but did not greatly elaborate on this. Group water schemes only came into being in the 1920s and 1930s after the State was founded, and I was not aware that the only system of water supply was the old, traditional well, many of which have become obsolete. The correct approach is to repeal the individual Acts in an up-front way, not in the indirect way proposed in this section of the Bill.

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

Is amendment No. 31 being seconded?

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

I second the amendment.

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

The Bill deals with all water services, not just group water schemes and legislation that has been enacted since their introduction.

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

I did not say that.

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

I made it clear on Committee Stage why it is necessary to include this section in the Bill. Section 100 clearly removes any possibility of old, obscure legislative provisions being used to undermine the intent of this Bill. It prevents such provisions from being used to impose legal technicalities on the service. Much of the old legislation dates from the 18th or 19th century, but some, as I stated the last day, goes back to the 13th century — 1258, to be precise. This Bill draws a line to establish the Water Services Act as the definitive water services legislation which will eclipse all other such legislation.

I am aware of the detailed research carried out by the officials in my Department which led to this Bill. They worked extremely hard to unearth the old Acts affecting water services, some of which are centuries old. We may all be surprised if something is unearthed, but if it is, section 100 will ensure it does not have any effect. It is possible, going back all those centuries, that obscure local Acts remain in place. We do not want any attempts to interfere with this legislation. Section 100 is necessary as a safety valve. It will prevent the use of any subsequently discovered legislation to derail the new Act. In the circumstances, I do not regret I am unable to accept the amendment. To do so would not be in the public interest or that of the Oireachtas.

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

Perhaps the Minister will give us an indication of which pre-1922 Acts are being referred to. He must have a list of old Acts provided by departmental officials. Any Government should be able to find this out; the research facilities are there.

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

Any Acts that are being repealed are clearly referenced in the legislation. If we knew which other Acts were involved, they would also be referenced. We are trying to ensure that in the event of the discovery of a relevant Act after the enactment of this Bill, it will not affect the operation of the legislation. There may be some local Acts that have not yet been discovered. The officials have done a tremendous job of trawling through old legislation to find the Acts that are being consolidated into this Bill. There may be more Acts that are not mentioned in the Bill but we have not yet discovered them. If they were discovered in the future and found to affect the operation of the Act, whoever is here is 20 or 30 years would be highly critical of us for not including this section.

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

I thank the Senators, particularly those who took an active interest in this debate — the Opposition spokespersons, Senators Bannon and McCarthy, and on the Government side, Senators Brady and Kitt — and monitored the passage of the legislation through the House. I thank everybody who contributed to the debate. Although all sides did not always agree about the various points, they approached the debate with the aim of getting the Bill right. The numerous amendments from the Opposition were tabled in good faith and without political interest or intent. I have been happy to accept whatever amendments I could and deal with Members' concerns with a view to improving the legislation following our collective deliberations.

The subject of this Bill may not have been the most enthralling to come before the House in recent times. Nevertheless, it will be seen as an important piece of modernising legislation. In addition to updating the legislative code to underpin modern standards of service delivery, it gathers under one cover, for ease of access, all relevant provisions dealing with the delivery and supervision of water services.

The Bill paints a clear picture of the responsibilities of both service providers and consumers. It puts in place a robust planning and supervisory regime to ensure that services are delivered in accordance with the best modern standards. It also represents another milestone in the roll-out of the Government's regulatory reform agenda. The introduction of water services licensing will have a significant impact on the standard of water services delivery in rural areas, with benefits for consumers and group water schemes alike.

I did not have the opportunity to reply to Senator Bannon's reference to what Europe may do in the future. Our position is accepted by Europe and covered in the water framework directive. In the matter of conservation, I must point out that of the €4.4 billion being provided by the Government between 2000 and 2006, we will be providing €300 million for water conservation purposes. This reflects the importance of conservation. The problem of the loss through leakage of up to 50% of water being treated must be dealt with.

This legislation is of fundamental importance and replaces a venerable legislative code. Let us hope it proves to be as robust as its predecessor. I thank the Senators who took part in the debate and the officials from my own Department who have worked extremely hard and helped the passage of the legislation through the House. There were 104 amendments to be dealt with. The officials have been working on this Bill for a considerable time and it is a credit to them. Mar fhocal scoir, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a chur in iúil do na Seanadóirí agus don Teach as ucht an suim a ghlac siad san mBille seo agus gabhaim buíochas leis na Seanadóirí a ghlac páirt san díospóireacht.

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

I thank the Minister and his officials for coming to the House and dealing with this Bill. The amendments put down by my own party were for the betterment of the Bill and I am glad the Minister accepted some of them and took our concerns into account. There is an onus on the Minister to ensure that waste management plans are in place in the various regions, along with sludge management strategies for counties. This is something that should be prioritised at local authority level when county development plans are prepared. Water conservation plans should be implemented at local authority level because that is where the buck stops. Proper planning and construction of schemes will result in an improvement in the quality and supply of water in different regions. It is important to have groundwater protection plans in place. There are problems in some lakes and rivers. This morning on the Order of Business the Leas-Chathaoirleach mentioned a lake in his area that is partly dead. That should not be allowed to happen. We need catchment management schemes and drainage studies in various parts of the country.

I will be a little parochial and ask the Minister to advance some of the water supply schemes in County Longford. When the Seanad adjourned last evening, I contacted the sanitary services department of the local authority in Longford and obtained a copy of the most recent county development plan. It shows that a total of 18 sewerage schemes are at an advanced stage. Some have been approved and are awaiting funding from the Department and there are eight additional schemes in the pipeline for progression within the Department. I hope the Minister and his officials will carefully examine those schemes and get them up and running in the interests of improving the water supply. Longford is part of the midlands with the Shannon on one side and the River Inny on the other. It is important that the projects I mentioned get maximum attention.

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

I join in thanking the Minister and his officials for bringing this Bill to the House and for the work they put into it. It is important to have this legislation consolidated. We have discussed the conservation, leakage and wastage of water, on which local authorities have, over the years, done much work. I hope the Minister will take on board our suggestions regarding old networks and provide the necessary funding.

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

I will not bother to give an overview of the debate which has gone on for almost eight hours. I thank the Minister for the manner in which he handled this legislation and acknowledge the work of his officials. It is a very technical and detailed Bill. Differences of opinion and debate are important. It is equally important that amendments put forward in good faith and seen to be constructive are accepted. It makes our job here that bit easier and helps to achieve the overall objective of providing good legislation.