Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank both delegations for trying to assist the committee in its deliberations. One of the expert commission recommendations is that we should fund personal and normal domestic use from general taxation. I have specific questions. The new word "hypothecation" will become very relevant and I thank the Department of Finance for outlining what it means. We must be sensitive about the policy areas relating to Government but it is definitely the elephant in the room. We have two choices. We need a dedicated revenue stream if we are to provide a sustainable supply of water to meet what the expert commission is recommending to us. That is an adequate allowance for personal domestic users. How do we provide that dedicated revenue stream? Do we provide it through the charging system that was in existence or by ring-fencing funding. The committee would set a precedent by recommending that as it would automatically recommend that policy decisions would be decided by committee rather than the Government. Am I correct in assuming that as a result of what the Department has outlined? If that is the case, why are there no similar joint Oireachtas committees for health, education and various other sectors, including housing, that see critical demand but are not achieving the same focus or attention from officials and policymakers like ourselves?

Acceptable level of usage will be critical to our deliberations. It is recommended by the expert commission that there would be a free allowance to an acceptable level of usage. Figures have been provided by the housing Department but in Ms Graham's view, what is an acceptable level of usage and is adequate funding provided in the business plan as outlined? That would include funding to deal with quality of water, compliance obligations and asset management systems to ensure sustainability of supply. I presume this is allowed for in the business plan. How does that equate to the acceptable level of usage model now proposed by the expert commission? This must be determined by recommendation by the Commission for Energy Regulation and the public water forum but I am interested to hear the Department's view because of its experience in the area. What is the effect in terms of cost and being able to sustain that type of system?

My next question is important and some members have already raised the issue. It relates to equity and fairness.

Group water schemes have already been mentioned. The costs in providing equality of access to quality water for people on a public system and those on a group water system have not been properly analysed. The figures being quoted so far at this committee are essentially going back to what the subsidy being provided prior to water charges was. Even with that subsidy, people on group water schemes were paying substantial fees to maintain their systems. If I am right in understanding what the expert commission is recommending, a normal acceptable allowance would be free to public consumers. By comparison and for the sake of equity, that normal acceptable allowance should also apply to those people on group water schemes. Has that analysis been done? There is a critical difference. If a free allowance is applied to a public user, that same allowance should be applied to a person on a group water scheme. That then obviously brings greater costs in terms of subsidy to ensure quality and sustainability of supply to people on group water schemes.

I hope I have made that clear. We have two systems of supply in this country: people who supply themselves either through group water schemes or private wells and people who are on the public system. A greater subsidy will be required to ensure that people providing water for themselves or through group water schemes have equal treatment to those who are not going to be charged under the public system if what was proposed by the expert commission goes ahead. I hope I am clear on that. If we are going to call a spade a spade, as Deputy Cowen said earlier on, this is going to come down to a revenue stream of funding either by charging or by ring-fencing, which would be a precedent, in my opinion, for the way in which budgetary allocations are made by a Government. If the committee is going to decide that the funding will be ring-fenced, why would that not apply across the board in other critical sectors?