Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 15 February 2017

Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services

Role of Regulators and Compliance with European Law: Discussion

1:30 pm

Photo of Paudie CoffeyPaudie Coffey (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman and I also thank all the witnesses that have contributed to the debate. Compliance with the Water Framework Directive is critical to this committee's ultimate recommendations and whatever policy the Government of the day will adopt. One of my questions to Ms Graham and the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government was if a legal risk assessment been carried out with the advice of the Attorney General in respect of compliance under both the Water Services Act 2014, which I would presume had the approval of the Attorney General as it has been enacted, and under the current suspension regime? Is she looking forward, in the river basin management plan, at further risk assessments? That is a critical point to make.

Taking account of the obligation that we as policy-makers have and that we as a country have, I will ask some questions of the Commission. With regard to consistency of how EU members are treated, are the witnesses satisfied that the Irish State is being treated consistently in terms of our obligations? We have heard about cases being taken to the European Court of Justice, ECJ. Are we being treated consistently? The impression may have been given that we are being targeted in some way by the Commission. I would like the witnesses to reassure the committee that is not the case. Will they give their view on that?

What are the witnesses' views on the fairest way to treat excessive use or waste of water resources? They have mentioned metering, but what is the view across the Commission and the EU member states? What is generally considered the fairest way to capture and to charge, or to treat in whatever way, people that waste or use water excessively?

There was a lot of debate around the derogation and whether it can still be applied in Ireland's case. Listening to the difference in views, I believe that the ECJ may well ultimately determine the outcome of that. The Commission has made clear to the committee its view under EU law, and the delegates need not reiterate it for me. As a member state we have bought in to the Commission as an authority and we, as committee members, should take careful cognisance of what it has said in regard to derogation. If the current water policy regime, that is the suspension of charges, continues, is it increasingly likely that further cases will be taken to the ECJ against Ireland?

A delegation from the Environmental Protection Agency is here today. In our whole debate about water services provision it is important that the EPA, as our environmental regulator, expresses a view. Taking account of another case taken against Ireland, where 38 urban centres around the country, large towns and cities, are now before the ECJ, is the EPA satisfied that the current Irish Water capital plan is adequate to address the issues in that case? Would it have any concerns regarding the sustainability of those capital plans should there be changes to how they are resourced in the future?

We have listened to some legal opinions here today. I welcome legal opinion, even though I might not always agree with it. It helps to inform the debate. Under the Water Services Act 2014, it was clear that Ireland was compliant with our obligations. I would like to hear if the legal experts share the view that Ireland would be less likely to be compliant if water services continue to be funded from general taxation and no charge levied? I would like to put their view on that on the record. If they think we would continue to be compliant without charges, why do they think that would be the case?

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.