Senators:

This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 103, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question "That the Bill be received for final consideration", the Minister may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil, and this is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad.

Senators:

For the convenience of Senators I have arranged for the printing and circulation of the amendments. The Minister will deal separately with the subject matter of each related group of amendments. I have also circulated the proposed grouping of amendments which I understand Senators have received. A Senator may contribute once on each grouping. I remind Senators that the only matter that may be discussed is the amendments made by the Dáil.

Senators:

I call the Minister to speak on the subject matter of the first group of amendments which are technical or drafting in nature.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sincerely pleased to be here today to report on the amendments made to the Water Services Bill. This legislation is important and historic in many ways not only because it is likely to be one of the last major Bills to go through the Oireachtas in its current mode but, more to the point, it deals with the law on water services over a long period and updates it.

Some considerable time has elapsed since the Bill was passed in this House in July 2004. This lapse was necessitated by the unforeseen requirements to address complex and technical issues which came to light in the interim and on which I will elaborate later.

The extended passage of time has, however, afforded me the opportunity to review the Bill in detail and to address issues raised by Members in both Houses during the course of the earlier debates. Senators may recall that two key issues, in particular, raised during the previous debate in the House were concerns, first, that the Bill could facilitate privatisation and, second, a general unease with proposals about the making of water services strategic plans. These originally were intended to be executive functions rather than functions reserved to elected members of the water services authority. Both have now been dealt with in an unequivocal manner with new provisions inserted to ensure against privatisation of water services infrastructures, which is an important set of provisions, and provisions on strategic planning have been revised to give responsibility for the making of such plans to the elected members, in the first instance, such that they become functions reserved to councillors.

Concerns, which were never well based, that the Bill might be a mechanism for the introduction through the back door of domestic charges have been also addressed with the insertion of a new section 105 to provide for another absolute prohibition on charging for domestic water services. This is the second absolute prohibition in domestic law to provide for that.

A new section 97 provides essential powers for local authorities to lay water pipes across land for the purpose of providing water services. Three additional new sections were also added for technical purposes to update the cross-reference to the Water Supplies Act 1942, the Planning and Development Act 2000, and the Local Government Act 2001 to ensure synchronisation of the new Act and in the case of the 2001 Act to update cross-references generally to other legislation since its enactment.

The amendments fall into nine broad groups which I will address. If Senators have queries on amendments not specifically referred to, I will be glad to elaborate on them.

Turning to the technical amendments, the first group, while a significant number of them have been made to the Bill, almost three quarters of them — more than 170 — are of a technical or drafting nature, for example, to correct syntax errors, to correct or update cross-references, to update definitions for greater clarity or to align wording generally with the current drafting practice. Typical examples are amendments Nos. 6 and 8 which update the definition of agriculture and distribution system to provide greater clarity. Amendment No. 7 inserts a new definition of aquaculture. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 improve the definition of the term "source". Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 48 are drafting in nature to update the collective citation of the Companies Act. Amendment No. 34 removes the reference to the now spent drinking water directive 80/778/EC and inserts references to two additional directives in section 5 of the nitrates directive and the EU directive on measuring instruments.

Amendments Nos. 77 to 80, inclusive, and amendment No. 137 update sections 32 and 58 of the Bill to ensure the complete transposition of the EU drinking water directive. These arose from internal discussions between officials of the Department and the European Commission to ensure compliance of the Irish legislative code with the directive.

A large number of the amendments, commencing with amendment No. 35 to section 6, were technical drafting amendments to replace each usage in the Bill of the words "guilty of an offence" with the words "commits an offence" to reflect latest drafting practice. A large group of 16 similar amendments, commencing with amendment No. 41 to section 9, change the existing format of the numbers affected from words to numerals in the text.

Amendment No. 141 brings greater clarity to section 60, removing a loophole from previous wording. The duty of care that requires authorised water service providers to maintain waste water works in good order could have been undermined if the provider in question was not a properly licensed authority. The current improved wording applies that duty instead to persons in charge of such waste water works.

Amendments Nos. 233 and 234 update the Long Title in the light of various additions inserted in the Bill and provide that one of its purposes is "in the interests of the common good". Such additional provision will provide the courts with a reference point for their interpretation of the Act.

I could continue with examples but I have indicated in my contribution the technical nature of many of the amendments. Many of them came from Opposition suggestions and make significant improvements to the Bill.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister to the House, although I am sure he would prefer to be elsewhere. As the Minister has stated, the vast majority of these amendments are technical or drafting in nature and have been approved in the other House, with many tabled by colleagues. We fully support the amendments in the group.

Senators:

The second group of amendments deals with offences and penalties.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This group deals with the changes to offences and penalty provisions. Penalty provisions under the Bill have been updated to align them with the latest drafting practice and a number of new offences have been created. I will outline the background and then deal with some of the offences in question.

Amendment No. 38 was inserted on the advice of the Attorney General to categorise the penalty provisions in the Bill in line with the latest drafting practice norms across environmental legislative codes. In tandem with this, amendment No. 56 inserted a new provision replacing the existing section 28, an assignment of additional functions which provides for the general authority to seek enforcement by High Court injunction against any person who is in breach of the Act and who is causing a risk to human health or the environment. The combination of the higher penalties and the recourse to court injunction is regarded by the Attorney General as a preferable enforcement regime to daily fines. Members will agree that this is a significant improvement over simple daily fines which, by their nature, would be relatively small.

Similar updating provisions were inserted into the Water Pollution Acts 1977 and 1990 and the water pollution-related provisions of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959 by amendments to sections 107 and 108 of the Bill in amendments Nos. 226 and 227. These will bring penalty provisions in the water pollution and water services areas fully into line and ensure their alignment with penalties in the broader environmental code, something Senators will appreciate. Environmental crime must be dealt with severely.

Turning to the offence provisions, amendment No. 64 inserted an additional provision into section 30(7), designating it an offence not to comply with a compliance notice issued by the Minister against a water service authority which is not in compliance with prescribed performance standards or which is not carrying out its duties in a satisfactory manner. It is important that everybody abides by the law, including public authorities. Failure by a group water scheme, for example, to comply with the requirement of a supervising water services authority, is designated an offence under the licensing provisions in Part 6. I consider it appropriate that a similar failure of the water service authority to comply with a requirement of the supervisory authority, in this case, the Minister, should be similarly designated an offence. In other words, if it is an offence for a group water scheme to behave in one way, it should equally be an offence if a local authority misbehaves in like manner.

Amendment No. 65 inserted a new subsection 30(10) to designate as an offence the failure of any person from whom the Minister seeks information or data, as per section 30(4)(k), to provide such information. It is astonishing that as matters stand, the Minister has limited powers to direct or even to find information and this is intolerable.

Amendment No. 135 inserts additional subsections in section 56 relating to the conservation of water. It gives the Minister regulation-making powers concerning recycling of water, including storm and rainwater, and provides for the introduction of hosepipe bans and other restrictions designed to conserve water supplies during periods of drought, such as restrictions on the use of water for swimming pools, car washes, etc. A related regime of fixed penalty notices, or on-the-spot fines as they are commonly called, is introduced for those who breach such restrictions. This will ensure the proper controls are applied during times of water scarcity. At the moment, drought orders simply cannot be enforced, so we have an enforcement provision as well as an on-the-spot fine provision, which is prudent and sensible. I recommend all the amendments to the House.

Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am intrigued concerning amendment No. 135, although I am not in confrontational humour. I am curious to know whether prior to the insertion of amendment No. 135 there was no clear power to prohibit all these things. That is the only question I have. One always assumed that in a time of water scarcity, local authorities started by appealing to the public but could then instruct. One of the wonderful things about politics is that one learns something new all the time. I am not the Labour Party spokesman on this issue, and the Minister, if he were in a confrontational mood, could say that shows, but I am glad of this amendment.

I have a long-standing interest in issues relating to the provision of water. The only argument I have with the Minister is the fact that there is always a scarcity of water and our philosophy in this regard must ultimately adjust to that. I do not believe in charging for domestic water, but clean drinking water is a scarce resource. To mention or not to mention Galway, that is the question. However, clean water is a scarce resource and, therefore, there is an issue to be addressed concerning conservation. I welcome the amendment and I confess to being astonished that we did not have it before. I am not blaming the Minister, but I am surprised.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I reflect some of the Senator's surprise in this regard. I had assumed there was a strong legislative base for controlling the abuse of water and I could not agree with him more. Water is not something that is free. It should be cherished and protected as a very important resource. The Senator's reference to Galway is apposite and I do not mind it because it illustrates the lacunae that existed. As Minister, I could not, for example, send water tankers into an estate in Galway, even though I believed it was the right thing to do. I have offered three times. The Senator is quite right. Some surprising omissions have existed in the law over many years. This is a very important Bill because it deals with a number of lacunae that exist and provides an appropriate legislative basis for the future. I was certainly of the view that hosepipe bans and drought orders could be enforced. They cannot and it is only until this Bill is passed that they can be introduced. It is appropriate that the Bill is passed for this purpose alone. I thank both Senators for their support.

Senators:

The third group of amendments relates to pipe installation and taking in charge.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Several amendments were designed to ensure that sufficient powers to undertake the essential function of installing or taking in charge of pipes and related water services infrastructure were made available under the Bill. Amendment No. 207 to section 95 enables a water services authority to regularise the status of private water supply pipes or wastewater collection pipes where their ownership cannot be readily ascertained after reasonable inquiry and at its discretion to take them in charge. The amendment will have particular application to the group water services scheme sector which has many instances of older schemes, established by trustees such as parish priests and other members of the local community, who have moved on or passed on. For these, there is no record or evidence as to continuing ownership or control. Such difficulties put these schemes in limbo. The legislation will provide a means to overcoming this difficulty.

Amendment No. 209 inserted a new section 94 to enable a water services authority to obtain consent to lay cables, water pipelines and ancillary fixtures over private lands. The new section updates 19th century Public Health Acts provisions and enables a water services authority to refer the matter to the Circuit Court for determination where consent is deemed to be withheld. Any related compensation for landowners will be assessed in accordance with standard provisions under the Planning and Development Acts, thus ensuring uniformity in approach across the various legislative headings.

Amendment No. 98 inserts additional provisions into section 42 to enable a water services authority to install connecting pipes on behalf of premises-owners where access is required across neighbouring privately-owned land. This is necessary to prevent delays in connecting water services and will ensure against exorbitant ransoms being charged for connection across neighbouring lands to gain access to a connection. Such additional costs inevitably get passed on to consumers and artificially drive up development costs.

Under amendment No. 91, section 41 is amended to provide that where a person claims an interest in or under a road, it will be a matter for that person to prove his or her interest as so claimed. The value of any such interest will be claimed to be nil unless it can be shown to be otherwise by the person making the claim.

Amendment No. 108 provides for the extension of powers relating to the renewal and maintenance of a connection running under a road provided for in section 43(9) to the installation of a connection in the first place to obtaining the consent of the relevant road authorities. Amendment No. 89 provides for public notification regarding works on the laying on or under a road. Amendment No. 110 sets out the procedures for taking in charge of a connection by a water services authority. Amendment No. 109 provides for the avoidance of doubt that a connection, once taken in charge by a water services authority, will become the sole responsibility of the authority. Amendment No. 206 updates cross-reference to the new section 98. Amendment No. 208 shortens and simplifies the wording of section 96. Amendment No. 51 clarifies provisions for services of notices under section 19 where the name of a person to whom the notice is directed cannot be ascertained.

These amendments will ensure an effective and balanced package of powers is available under the Bill to underpin the installation of water services infrastructure while protecting the rights of individual landowners affected.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The area of group water schemes requires clarity which this legislation provides. I support these amendments.

Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I fully support these long overdue amendments. I have a holiday home in a very beautiful part of the country and there are many others around it. It has been suggested that if someone ever excavated some of the fields in the vicinity, pipes — some going to livestock but many to holiday and other homes — might surface which were never approved by anybody.

Water is inherently a scarce resource. There is only a question of relative scarcity. If the glorious weather in April is a prelude to a glorious summer of three or four months, the problems we now face will be significantly greater.

I am glad we are doing this and hope it can be enforced and policed in a reasonably sensible and humane way because, as I keep saying, water is a scarce resource. There is a sensible debate to be had which does not necessarily involve going down the British route of privatisation and brutal charging or retaining the status quo where vast quantities of expensively treated water is used to flush our toilets, for instance, when other types of water would do just as well.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Bill and the amendments outlined by the Minister. Quality water is very important. Often new connections are sought when there is a problem with an existing source. Local authorities should be instructed to test the existing source, whether to a farm or a house, to ensure their supply cannot be contaminated. There have been cases where a new source, when connected, has been polluted by an existing one. That has caused serious problems for local authorities. When a new supply is being connected, the existing one should be thoroughly checked.

The Minister referred to existing schemes. Certain members of a scheme may not want it to be taken over. If two thirds of the board agree, it can be taken in charge and properly looked after. I have no doubt that those in the local authority are the best people to look after the source. There are many group schemes, particularly in rural areas, which have worked well but there is a high risk.

Senator Ryan commented on the situation in Galway. If one has a holiday home or a mobile home in Galway, one faces a risk with the water source. I reckon that in many cases local authorities have know about problems with, or risks to, water and have stood back from them and not dealt with the people causing the problems. A problem then blows up leaving it quite late to try to rectify it. If people sought funding and took the initial steps to rectify the problems in time, many of them could be alleviated. I welcome the Bill and the amendments the Minister outlined.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Would that all debates were so well focused, for which I thank the Senators. Senator Ryan had a specific query with regard to water services and pipes. I agree with him on this matter. As domestic pipes in urban areas were laid in the 19th century, local authorities do not have a clue as to their location. Section 49 deals specifically with this point in that it provides that local authorities, in due course, must make a proper mapping of all pipes. One of the critical issues to be addressed is that of water leaking from pipes, which also increases the risk of contamination of the supply. The mapping of pipes is a sine qua non. By way of illustration of the significance of that problem, when we were in Galway discussing taking water from Tuam into Galway, I was amazed to be informed by officials that up to 70% of the water going through the piping system in Tuam town was being lost through wastage. We have provided €240 million which has been set aside to deal with this problem of leakage. Dublin City Council is doing an amazing job and ten contractors will re-pipe 240 km over the course of this summer and later this year. I wish them well because it is necessary.

Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is long overdue.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope Senator Ryan takes solace from that information.

On the issue of polluted water, which was referred to by my colleague, the local authority will have the power under section 59 to order closure of a polluted source until the problem is fixed. This Bill is timely, coming as it does on top of the Galway issue. It is a consistent response to all the problems that have presented themselves, and it is a Bill that has been much improved by the debate in both Houses. I have incorporated a significant number of amendments from all sides of the House. The wisdom and experience that exists in both Houses have been brought to bear on the Bill. I am grateful for the Senators' comments.

Senators:

Group 4 amendments deal with privatisation.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I share Senator Ryan's aversion to the concept of privatising water. If there was ever one innovation in public administration that was introduced in our nearest island and which we should never emulate, it is privatisation of water supplies because it has been a disaster. I was happy, therefore, to accept amendment No. 55 on Committee Stage in the Dáil which inserted an additional provision in section 27 to provide that any function of the Minister or of a water services authority under the Bill may only be transferred to another party provided that democratic accountability for the function concerned is maintained.

I also moved amendment No. 86 to provide that, notwithstanding the contracting out of particular water services to a third party under section 40, the contracting water services authority to whose benefit the service is being provided will still retain responsibility under this Act for ensuring it complies with our requirements. The purpose of this amendment was to put beyond any doubt that the introduction of a DBO arrangement for the delivery of water services on behalf of a water services authority could enable the water service in question to be privatised, in other words, to prevent the DBO system becoming a way for local authorities to wash their hands of their responsibilities and move away from it.

Those of us who served on local authorities have all had experience of what happened when waste management was privatised and how officials in some councils were very anxious to get rid of something. Councillors did not knowingly consent to this happening, but it will not happen now.

Amendment No. 70 was inserted into section 31 on Report Stage to prohibit a local authority from entering into any agreement which would allow the transfer of the assets of a water services authority or infrastructure into private hands. This further strengthens the Government's commitment to retaining the provision of water services in the local government sector and the Bill is now fully proofed against privatisation of water services. Any proposal relating to privatisation would have to be provided for under further legislation and it is a concept to which the Government and I are vigorously opposed. A bad mistake was made on our neighbouring island and we should never follow that route.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the Minister regarding privatisation. There should be no question of privatising water supplies.

On the matter of leaks in the system, when I first became a member of a local authority in Waterford more than 25 years ago, the council encouraged many of the people who had previously worked on the water supply to return and provide assistance. These individuals, who had retired from work, knew the exact locations of pipes, etc. This was probably the greatest thing we ever did because Waterford city now has the best water supply in the country. As a result of the expertise and experience of those to whom I refer, who provided advice to the council's officials and engineers, we were able to map the system properly and reduce obvious wastage. I am glad that provisions relating to the public ownership of supplies are contained in the Bill.

Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will probably test the indulgence of the Leas-Chathaoirleach but in light of the vigour of the Government's commitment to not privatising water supplies, I wish to urge the Minister to persuade those who represent it at bodies such as the IMF, the World Bank, etc., to encourage a move away from the crusade for privatising water services in developing countries. In my view, such a development is as regressive in a poor country as it is in a rich country such as Ireland. I hope there will be a consistency of public policy on that issue.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted to inform the Senator that as recently as last year, I argued long and hard at a UN session about the criminal folly of the idea that some of the largest corporations in the world might provide water or waste water treatment services out of the goodness of their hearts to the people of the developing world. I pointed out — a Kenyan minister who was present was extremely interested in what I had to say — that the best model I had ever seen of communities taking charge of this resource was that which relates to the Irish group water system. This is an idea that we could and should export. I stated at the conference to which I refer that in Ireland people have ownership of the resource and that relatively simple systems have been put in place.

Countries such as Ireland that are making development contributions could contribute in this regard. I agree with Senator Ryan that one thing is certain, namely, that if the mega-operators establish operations in countries in sub-Saharan Africa and other developing nations, the water systems will work while they are present but six months after they leave their complex technologies behind they will begin to break down. The people will be worse off as a result because not only will they not have water, they will also be burdened with debt. I agree with the Senator that there should be a consistency in our approach to this matter.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the Minister and Senator Cummins regarding schemes, pipework and leaks. The metering of all supplies on the part of local authorities is a welcome development. Local authority officials will be in a position to check the amount of water being used, even if there is no charge in respect of supplies. The more meters that are put in place, whether on farms or in private houses, the more the situation relating to abuse and leaks will improve. The point has been made that some developers are getting away with murder by connecting 20 or 30 apartments or houses to a single meter that comes from the mains supply. The apartments or houses in question are not being individually metered. It is difficult for local authorities to find and penalise the developer abusing the system.

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

I welcome the amendments the Minister made in the Dáil. I would like to comment on a few aspects of this debate. The Minister rightly stated that water should always be a public utility rather than being in private hands. He correctly pointed out some of the excesses which have marked the behaviour of private companies in Great Britain. I would like to make one or two small points which are relevant to this group of amendments and some of the other amendments.

Senator Moylan spoke about metering. Since I got married, I have paid for the water used on my farmyard and in my house. It has been measured by a meter. While I do not object to paying for water, I do not like doing it because I am aware that many people get water for free. I understand why it should be metered. A person who owns a cattle shed that requires a great deal of water is the same as a person running a business in any other industry and probably should be treated in the same way. Such people should not engage in special pleading.

As I said recently when responding to remarks made on the Order of Business about problems with the water supply in the west, I am concerned that senior local authority officials frequently see bodies of water such as lakes not only as sources of water but also as repositories for waste. Those two approaches are basically inconsistent. Like other Members of the House, I have a holiday home. The water supply to my holiday home, which is near Oughterard and Lough Corrib, is perfect. There is no difficulty with it because it does not come from Lough Corrib. Something must be done about the public sewerage system in Oughterard because it is polluting Lough Corrib. It was not designed to cater for the large number of houses it must deal with.

The Minister rightly reminded the House that great work is being done to reduce the amount of water leaked from the Victorian system used in Dublin. The system is losing approximately 30% of its water through leaks. A great deal of work is being done.

I am concerned about the ability of the River Liffey to meet the demand for water in Dublin, which is increasing as more developments are sanctioned. As someone who grew up near the river, I have noticed the decrease in its water level. When I was a member of a local authority, a report on the greater Dublin water supply was produced by Générale des Eaux. The section of the report relating to conservation recommended that the pipes system be improved.

We need to consider alternative sources of water. I suggested at the time that the River Shannon be considered in that context. The Leader of the House at the time was opposed to the possibility that anybody might touch Lough Ree, which is a huge impoundment. Millions of gallons of water could be taken from Lough Ree every day without making much of a difference to the lake's water level.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would improve our situation.

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

If it did, it would improve the Shannon down in Banagher for Senator Moylan. At the time, I was told by senior local authority officials that it would be impossible to take water from Lough Ree to Dublin. I pointed out that a right of way existed along the route in the form of the Royal Canal. I suggested that a pipe be laid along the canal and reminded the officials that it would not be necessary to buy land. I was told that what I was proposing was technically impossible. One of the alternative measures suggested in the report produced by Générale des Eaux was the taking of water from Lough Ree. It is impossible for the River Liffey to continue to provide the amount of water that it is being asked to supply to Dublin.

I wish to return to the issue of metering. It is essential that we should know what amount of water is being used. When I canvassed in one of the most affluent parts of west Dublin during a by-election campaign some years ago, I found it extraordinary that people with three cars, three bathrooms, a jacuzzi, a swimming pool and two dishwashers complained that they might have to pay for water. Given that the amount of water used in some large houses is 50 times greater than the amount used in some cottages, it is clear that limits must be imposed in certain circumstances. In future, it is possible that a local authority waiver scheme will be introduced in this regard. Perhaps people should have to pay if they use an amount of water that is above the basic level to which everybody is entitled. Such a system can be put in place only if we provide for a metering system.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator has jumped a little ahead. The issue of metering will be dealt with in the fifth group of amendments. As a basic service, water will continue to be supplied without charge in domestic settings. Metering is an extremely good way to detect leaks. A lovely story was told by the president of the Federation of Group Water Schemes about how, when meters were first introduced to a part of the country I will not name, water wastage was greatly reduced. The simple fact of meters being installed led people to start turning off taps instead of leaving hosepipes running across yards.

The really beneficial aspect of meters is that they allow one to locate water and leaks, which sometimes can be very difficult to tackle. When the old men with the sounding pipes went, a great deal of wisdom was lost. Yesterday I was driving across the country canvassing and came across an elderly man using a sound tap to identify a water leak. Meters would allow us to dispense with such technology.

Perhaps I might also mention the issue that Senator Dardis raised, namely, local authorities using water from lakes into which there have been discharges. I shortly will be making regulations establishing a new authorisation regime covering discharges into waste-water works. Senators will be aware that in advance of this legislation I granted certain additional powers to the EPA to monitor water sources. The issue was mentioned in its last report, and we have already acted on it.

I am very pleased the section on privatisation meets the requirements of all sides of the House.

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

Group five covers supervision and licensing — amendments Nos. 57 to 59, inclusive, 71, 162, 187 and 224.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This group of amendments provides for enhanced supervisory arrangements regarding the provision of water services and the oversight of trade effluent discharges.

Amendment No. 57 to section 59 removes the immunity from proceedings to claim damages arising from the non-performance of a duty under the Act by the Minister, a water services authority or other prosecuted person. There was some discussion of the matter in the House, and I accept that such a provision could have been considered anomalous and in conflict with existing legislation. For example, it could have been interpreted as preventing an action to claim damages arising from the provision of a substandard public water supply because of a failure to carry out duties regarding the management of a treatment plant. It is clear and obvious that if water is supplied by a local public water authority, that authority has a duty and responsibility to ensure it operates its treatment plants correctly. Under this section, such authorities would not be immune from having to answer for their failings. That is only right, and the change represents an improvement.

Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 224 are linked and provide that the Minister's supervisory duties under section 30 must be carried out in accordance with the relevant EU directives affecting water services, as well as granting the EPA supervisory responsibility over local authority water supplies. Such an approach has been already adopted in the interim drinking-water regulations that I made on 8 March pending enactment of the Bill. I put those amendments through because I was worried the Bill itself might not be passed, depending on the date of the election. I was most anxious that the EPA, in addition to having the power to measure and monitor, should be also able to prosecute.

I look forward to the EPA using that power where local authorities have failed, since it is wrong and criminal to leave people at risk by not having a treatment plant or works that comes up to scratch. Without any specific case in mind, it is a good precautionary measure. People should know they will have to answer for their failures. This change has been anticipated by the interim drinking-water regulations, to which the legislation gives permanent effect.

Amendment No. 71 qualifies the obligation imposed on water services authorities under section 31(13) to ensure water intended for human consumption meets prescribed standards by providing additionally that the necessary measures to ensure such compliance may involve action by a water services authority itself or another person on whom a relevant obligation is imposed under the Act.

Amendment No. 162 inserts an additional provision into section 63 regarding the licensing of trade effluent to enable a water services authority to revoke a trade effluent licence issued under that section where waste-water charges in respect of the treatment, recovery and disposal of that effluent have not been paid by a specified date. To ensure the rights of the licence holder were duly protected, the application of the power is subject to the water services authority having obtained a court order in the first instance for the recovery of these charges before making such an order providing for the revocation of the licence.

Amendment No. 187 to section 79 extends the licensing requirements under Part 6 to include explicitly for the provision of water from tankers to avoid any enforcement difficulties arising where such provision is necessitated. Members will be aware of my views on providing water from tankers to hard-pressed households from time to time.

Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to make a point on the fifth group amendments. I confess to not having read the amendments in detail but I have listened carefully to the debate. Is it intended to do anything about individual sewage treatment facilities such as septic tanks and other devices? The very least that should be done is that people would be required to get these tanks cleaned regularly. It is my understanding that it is a rare enough event for a domestic septic tank to be cleaned. That was fine when there was only one house and a large area to absorb it but if houses are being built in large numbers in rural areas, each with a septic tank, groundwater pollution will become a problem. The simple solution is to require people to have these facilities cleaned regularly.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I draw the Senator's attention to section 70 which introduces a specific requirement in the proposed legislation that places a duty of care on all persons, irrespective of the source, that could form a contamination. This is a major step forward which addresses a lacuna that existed.

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

Group six relates to strategic plans and includes amendments Nos. 62 and 82 to 84, inclusive.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84 provide for the substitution of new sections, respectively, for sections 36, 37 and 38 regarding the making of water services strategic plans by water service authorities. Section 36 now provides that the making of a water services strategic plan will be a reserved function for the members in the first instance. There was lengthy debate on this issue when the Bill first came to the House. I concur with the views expressed by several Senators that it is in the best interests of local democracy that elected members should have such strategic powers. As a result of this change we will have an interesting position whereby the elected representatives will make the development plan and the water services strategic plan as well.

This touches on the point adverted to by Senator Ryan. It is the proliferation of septic tanks that has caused difficulties in some areas of the country. It is important that when local authorities draw up their development plans, they are conscious of the impact they could have on their water services strategic plans. It is essential such plans would be linked seamlessly into broader national infrastructural and economic development planning and that they would be consistent with national budgetary requirements.

If necessary, the Minister will have new powers to direct that a plan should be revised or replaced for stated reasons. This is similar to arrangements that exist in planning law. In addition, where a satisfactory plan is not made within the prescribed time limits, the function of making the plan will revert to the county or city manager but this will only arise when the elected representatives have failed in their duty to fulfil their responsibilities. Such provisions are an essential back-up should the members of a local authority fail in their duties, but I would hope members never will. A related drafting amendment, No. 62, provided for the deletion of section 30(4)(i) as section 30(7)(i) includes a similar provision.

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

It is important local authority members would be made aware of their responsibilities and the need to take a strategic view on how water should be managed and used. One of the disappointing features of what has happened in the past is that under much of our legislation, local authorities have been exempt when it came to matters such as pollution, etc. In other words, they always have a get-out clause which the ordinary citizen does not have.

One often hears from members and management at council meetings sanctimonious speeches on the need to protect the environment but this is not backed up by what they are doing. One cannot demand of the ordinary citizen that he or she apply a high standard when the local authority is not prepared to do the same. These are important aspects. Other aspects of the Bill, alluded to earlier, give more teeth to the local authorities to enable them fulfil their obligations with regard to waste water discharges and the quality of water provided. Too much has happened in the past to allow them get off the hook. The famous BATNEEC, "best available technology not entailing excessive cost", was frequently used as a get-out-clause for not doing what was required.

Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Again, I hope these strategic plans include a requirement for continuous monitoring and for the publication of the results of such monitoring so people do not have to submit freedom of information requests to obtain it. I heard a true story about Dublin County Council a few years ago in regard to a request for emissions data supplied to it by a successful pharmaceutical plant in the Dublin area which was denied on the basis that the information sought was commercially sensitive. The same data was on public display at the entrance to the pharmaceutical plant and the company was furious that a row had erupted in respect of the release of information it wished to make public. We must ensure this type of data is put into the public domain if we are to close the loop.

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

I remind the Minister that we must conclude this Bill by 5 p.m.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the point made by Senator Ryan. I have made provision elsewhere in the Bill that monitoring will not only take place but that the results of such monitoring must be published and placed on websites. I believe this is the best way of making information available. The Senator is correct that people should not have to use FOI to obtain such information.

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

Group 7 deals with protection of infrastructure, including against illegal connection to services.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This group of amendments strengthen the power of the water services authorities to facilitate connection of consumers to water services while also providing improved protection for water providers against unauthorised connections and underpinning the maintenance and protection of the integrity of the pipe network. Amendment No. 204 fine-tuned the wording of section 92 to ensure it is capable of being applied in the manner originally intended. The original wording assumed that the owner of the premises, to whom a notice is directed, is also the owner of the connecting pipes. This may not always be the case.

A group of related amendments, Nos. 123 to 127, inclusive, and Nos. 143, 145 and 148 to sections 55 and 61 in respect of water supply infrastructure and waste water infrastructure provide that a water services authority may attach conditions to any agreement for connection. Such conditions could include the provision of larger capacity connecting pipes and so forth. Amendments Nos. 219 and 221 provide additionally to section 103 for the designation as required of a sterilised corridor around a pipe to ensure that the structure's integrity is protected. Amendment No. 103 to section 43(4) places responsibility for the maintenance or repair on owners of premises using the connection where ownership of the connection cannot be established.

Amendments Nos. 158 and 161 to section 63 enables effluent licensing to be extended to domestic water discharges if required. An additional amendment which warrants mention is amendment No. 175 which applied the duty of care, of which I spoke earlier, under section 72 to maintain drains, manholes and septic tanks on the premises to the owners rather than the occupiers of the premises as had been originally provided. Such additional provisions as have been outlined are essential to the orderly planning and management of the water service infrastructure. I commend them to the House.

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

Group 8 deals with metering.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This group deals with metering, which has been already discussed. The opportunity to make some changes have been availed of in amendments Nos. 180, 181, 184 and 186. These amendments deal with the protections afforded by metering. I commend them to the House.

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

Group 9 deals with water charges.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This group of amendments insert into the Bill provisions on water charges. The purpose of amendments Nos. 222 and 223 is to strengthen and consolidate in a single provision the existing legal provisions authorising the imposition of charges for water services, for ease of understanding and accessibility. The existing legal code for water service charges is scattered piecemeal and this brings it together. Government policy on water charges which provided only for charges for non-domestic charges and prohibits charging for water services provided for households for domestic use is not affected. Neither is the new provision intended to be capable of enabling existing policy to be changed.

I take this opportunity to make it clear that any proposal of any future Government to reintroduce domestic water charges would require additional legislation. That is not a runner in so far as this Government is concerned. Unlike existing legislation which simply authorises water service authorities to charge for water services, the proposed new code obliges water authorities to charge non-domestic users for all associated costs.

Section 105(4) was further amended on Report Stage to again extend the waiver provisions in case of personal hardship and to provide also for a water charge. Regulations under the new section 106 will enable the Minister to specify what costs could be included. This set of amendments in effect doubly legislates against water charges.

Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a question and a statement. Is there a definition in the legislation of "domestic purposes" or are we referring simply to water that comes through a tap inside a house? There is an issue regarding waste of water which the Minister described. I fully agree with the principle that domestic water should not be charged for.

As an owner of a holiday home, I strongly believe that holiday home owners should pay for their water. There is no reason why anybody who owns a second home should get free water from a local authority or a group scheme.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The concept of domestic is based on the relevant sanitary services legislation. A composite definition of "domestic" based on section 7(11) of the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act 1962 and section 12 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Acts provides the relevant definition.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Are schools exempt from charges? That issue has been raised on a number of occasions. Surely schools should not have to pay charges and should be classified as domestic.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are not so classified because a school is not covered in the definition of "domestic". While the statutory power to charge schools for water supply has existed here since 1878 as water rates and since 1962 as water charges, local authorities have not always used that power. However, the policy adopted by Government in November 1999 has since then required full transparent cost recovery. There has been an issue regarding cost recovery. It is to be regretted that schools do not fall under the definition of "domestic" and never have.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I listened to a most heated and energetic debate at the INTO Annual Congress this year on that issue. The Minister has met representatives of the educational communities at local level who have pointed out to him how inadequate are their grants to meet the demands on them in terms of different local authority charges. I am not opposed to local authority charges in a general sense but it is quite unfair that they are used at school level. In the event of schools having to pay charges to local authorities, could they not be allowed to recoup those charges from the State? There should be no difficulty about that since it would not require a change in the law. The State should recognise the difficulty for schools and give those running primary and post-primary schools around the country money to compensate for the additional charges.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If we were to do that there would be no inducement for schools to do what they are doing, which is to introduce innovative conservation measures. Conservation studies have been done. In Galway community school a major study was commenced in 2004 which indicated that the benefits of introducing water conservation measures in schools is very significant. The core issue is that we have been under pressure because we do not charge for domestic water in this country. There is significant pressure on us to change that approach, but both Houses have agreed it should not happen. We have legislated on the double against it occurring. Water charges and the schools capitation grants could be discussed by another Department at another time.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Would it not be an easy thing for the Government to compensate schools for the additional cost?

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Members of both Houses who engaged in a long and constructive debate on the legislation. This very important legislation deals with some of the significant issues which have been raised. For example, it puts privatisation beyond the law. It deals with strategic planning for and conservation of water and places responsibility on all players in the water sector to ensure recent events are not repeated. It is a timely Bill which will produce a modern body of law by consolidating a considerable volume of legislation originating in the 19th century. I am grateful to both Houses and the joint committee for the extraordinarily constructive work which was carried out on this radical legislation.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister and his officials for bringing before us this important legislation which it was essential to pass before the change of Government.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister and his officials for bringing the Bill to the House initially and for taking so many important amendments on board. We must recognise the outstanding work which has been done to ensure quality water supplies by local authority caretakers in our counties.

Senator Ryan made a point earlier about the proliferation of septic tanks. The onus must be on local authorities to provide enforcement officers in this area. People who apply for planning permission must carry out percolation tests and observe planning requirements for PureFlow systems or similar. However, what has been put in place is never checked, which is a failure which may come back to haunt us yet. It would be money well spent to provide for enforcement officers to ensure this most important aspect of planning is observed. We can fall out over the type and placing of windows in a rural house, but what is underground is crucial and should be checked after planning is granted.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I compliment the Minister and his officials on bringing forward this important legislation. I always like to leave the Minister with an idea when he visits the House. It would be very helpful if Sustainable Energy Ireland were to make grants available for rainwater harvesting. I have raised the matter with the Minister before. It would be a simple policy to implement and I do not understand the reticence to pursue it.

I agree with Senator Moylan's point about enforcement. I recall that when we built our own house 35 years ago, which was before the introduction of self-contained, bio-cycle waste systems for one-off housing, the septic tank provider also installed a tertiary treatment plant. By the time the material had been processed in the third tank, it was like clean water. Senator Moylan makes the important point that while we require the installation of certain systems, we never check to see how well they are doing.

I have spoken to people from the fisheries boards who must often examine applications for planning permission and who must do tests regarding soakage. One cannot argue with that. Such measures might deal with the issues which often bother rural dwellers. It is important to monitor the outcomes of decisions to see if they are working properly. I commend the Minister and his officials on their work on the Bill.

Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Water is a scarce resource and drinking water is especially scarce. The central object of public policy should be to minimise the use of drinking water and ensure it is used only where it is needed. When I was a small boy my mother used wash my hair in rainwater in south Kildare.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The same was done in every country house in Ireland.

Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In south Kildare in particular, water was hard because of the amount of limestone in the soil. Rainwater was regarded as better for washing.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My wife says it puts a shine on her hair. It is taken out of the barrel and boiled on the Aga.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

And look what happened to Senator O'Toole.

Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As one of those who, intermittently, raised the matter of what the Dáil was doing with this Bill between 2003 and 2007, I accept that the Dáil did some good work. The Bill is better than when it passed this House four years ago.