Mr. Colm Brady:

I will deal first with the second issue on fairness and equity. I presume the Deputy is talking about Irish Water and other service providers versus the group water scheme sector. As mentioned in our submission, since the late 1990s when domestic water charges were abandoned on the public water supplies, the group water scheme sector has been getting a subvention towards the cost of supply and treatment of domestic water services. That has been in place since then. Group water schemes come together as a group, assess their own individual overall costs, assess what they can get through the subsidy and then agree among themselves as a group with the leadership of the committee of management or board of directors as to what they are prepared to contribute directly towards the costs of their group water supply scheme.

That subsidy has been reviewed a number of times since then. We have a partnership arrangement with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, as it was, and now the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government. We review that on behalf of the schemes with that Department. In all instances we have had a good relationship with the Department and found that it takes our views on costs into account. That review has always been an upward review, apart from the time when domestic water charges were reintroduced when we had a reduction in that subsidy.

Irrespective of what comes out of this process, whether it be a charge based on excessive usage, a charge that is based on a charge that is there currently but suspended, or no charge at all, we would expect to sit down with the Department. We have received assurances from the Department, and I am sure all the people here would give us the same assurances, as to what this committee would recommend.

We have been given assurances that we will get a review of that subsidy and that situation. We have flagged, and we always would flag, additional charges that have arisen since the previous review in 2008. We refer to some of those charges here and we would expect those additional costs to be taken into account in any review. The equity arises in the operation and maintenance cost. We would expect that equity would continue to apply through that process.

Group water schemes have been getting capital grants towards the capital costs of new group water schemes and upgrading old group water schemes. The old group water schemes I am talking about in were installed in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Those group water schemes were effectively in a mess in the late 1990s and were the subject of a European Court of Justice case. There had always been grants for the group water scheme sector, but at that stage the grants were significantly increased. A serious amount of work was done under that rural water programme, as it was, again in partnership with the Department and local authorities through the national rural water services committee. That work has been done.

Without fear of contradiction, I can say that at this stage the group water scheme sector, through that grant aid process, is probably in a better position from an infrastructural point of view than Irish Water. All the reports we have seen to date indicate that Irish Water is in need of serious investment in order to bring its infrastructure up to date. We are ahead of the posse there and have achieved that through that grant aid. We would expect that grant aid to continue through the process if that level of support is there for Irish Water and its capital costs.

Group water schemes contribute towards the initial capital costs and the capital costs of any improvements and replacement infrastructure. It is a programme that is very focused on getting value for money and only replacing infrastructure where it is needed. Around all that, through that rural water programme, the whole area of metering came into play big time.

Group water scheme committees of management would have been iffy about metering in the beginning. Through the process of metering, and I mean individual meters for tens of thousands of members across hundreds of group water schemes right around the country, it immediately became very evident that most or at least a very high proportion of the excessive usage or leakage, whatever we want to call it, was on the consumer side of the meter, particularly when the contribution mechanism based on volume of usage came in. Through that, the usage and demand came down. The amount of infrastructure required also came down, such as reservoir storage. There were instances where projects for planned reservoirs could be abandoned because of the reduction in usage. That was one of the savings. There was a saving for operational maintenance costs since the more water put through a system, the more maintenance required. That has come about through all that. Group schemes would say, without contradiction, that universal metering as a management tool and as a water conservation tool on their group water schemes, combined with a reasonable charge on usage over and above a free allowance, has been the single driving force behind the overall transformation of the sector.

I will address excessive usage and what it constitutes. Our research on the group water scheme sector, and we can only deal with the thousands of members on group water schemes that we talk about, shows that the average usage of a household would range from about 120 cu. m to 150 cu. m per annum. That would be based on metered usage in the context of a metered water charge over a particular free allowance.