Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to speak. It appears from the proposal supplied that in the initial submission the witnesses allowed the rate proposed to remain as the rate to be used - I refer to the rate of €244. Notwithstanding this, the witnesses have referred to a figure of 8.2% in efficiencies. Can they reconcile all this? I would have thought that if cost reductions were sought the same should apply to a reduction in charges.

Given that 80% of water meters are to be installed by the end of 2016 was a model considered that would continue to apply a capped assessed charge or maximum charge until the end of 2016? This strikes me as a consistent approach to take as it would allow meters to be installed - in other words, by the time charges are to be applied based solely on meters, 80% of them would already be installed. As things stand the system is already in operation and a very small proportion of meters are installed. The witnesses might let me know what percentage of meters have been installed to this point.

Was the creation of an ombudsman in this area considered given that the witnesses and the CER are dealing with these queries? Is there a danger that we are putting the cart before the horse? Should we seek a model that works for people? The biggest issue facing the people we in these Houses represent is the level of uncertainty around the charge.

The key question is whether CER has considered leaving the capped charge in place up to the end of December 2016, by which time 80% of the meters will be installed. What was the basis for seeking the 8.2% reduction in costs? Were bonuses to staff included when due diligence was carried out on the efficiencies?