Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair and Irish Water and Ervia for the presentations so far. The proposal to bring forward the end of the service level agreement, albeit negotiated, and to move to what Irish Water calls a single utility model has profound implications not just for the workforce but also for the delivery of services. I have a series of questions, none of which have to do with the industrial relations elements. That is a matter between Irish Water, the local authorities and the unions and their members. However, this is not just an issue for them. It is also an issue for local authorities and the public who access water services. It is in that context that my concerns are raised.

The original service level agreement indicated there could be future service level agreements. I think "one of many" was one of the phrases included at the time. My first question for Irish Water and the Department was whether, to address some of the issues motivating the proposed change, an alternative service level agreement or a different type of service level agreement was considered. I refer in particular to addressing issues such as management practices, operational practices and efficiencies etc.

Mr. Quinn mentioned the ESB as an example of a freestanding public utility. It is a public utility that has a very strong public service ethos and strong public support. It is also a non-commercial semi-State company and very different to the model for Irish Water and its location in Ervia. Did the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government and Irish Water look at transforming the utility from a commercial semi-State entity located in Ervia to a non-commercial semi-State body on the model of the ESB both for the obvious benefits it would have for workers and the utility and to build public confidence?

Can the witnesses confirm that at the centre of this proposal is a desire to reduce the total number of full-time equivalent staff currently employed in the delivery of water and sanitation services from 4,300 to approximately 3,300? Effectively, there would be 1,000 fewer full-time equivalents working directly in water and sanitation services. In addition to confirming that, can the witnesses also outline what the impact of that would be on the ability of the utility to deliver those services? I ask in the context of an increased capital investment programme and increased use of local authority staff to deal with a whole range of issues, some of which have already been outlined.

In addition, we have a growing population. The national development plan and the national planning framework refer to about a million more people in the State over the next 20 years. At a time when there is going to be more demand for Irish Water's services, how will it cope with having 1,000 fewer full-time equivalents?

Obviously if staff are taken out of the direct delivery of services, there will be more reliance on contractors, particularly in relation to the capital investment end of the services. As such, they are not savings in some senses. Is it not the case that Irish Water is simply transferring certain areas of work, which are currently conducted by operational staff employed by the local authorities, to capital investment accounting funded by contractors? Therefore, is the figure of €70 million really the full account of that saving? It is really a smaller figure.

Mr. Grant mentioned €70 million in savings to the taxpayer. There are no compulsory redundancies. That is very clear in the proposition. That means that the 1,000 full-time equivalents taken out of the delivery of water services could end up still employed by local authorities. Therefore there is not a saving of €70 million to the taxpayer. The true situation is that Irish Water does not have to pay that €70 million and central Government will have to pay it to continue, whether the number of staff concerned is 1,000, 800 or 500. Has the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government examined this issue? The Department has to come up with the money for an extra 1,000 staff members in local authorities, including some pretty senior-level managerial staff. How have officials worked that out? Those two questions suggest that the net savings to the taxpayer could be much lower than the €70 million. Is there any detail on that?

This is a question for the Department. Local authorities have been stripped of a range of services, domestic waste and bin collection obviously being the most recent. What would be the impact on local authorities and their functioning if all of the staff of what had traditionally been core services were sucked out of the local authorities and transferred into a single utility? Has the Department looked at the impact on the overall local government model and the viability of the local authorities as we currently understand them? Has that been part of the Department's considerations?

We are talking here about the desire to transfer staff and operations from local authorities. I note that €100 million is in design-build, DB, and design-build-operate, DBO, contracts. Does it not make sense to try to bring forward the end of those contracts, particularly when they are not on the scale of the Ringsend plant, to try to fully incorporate them into the public utility? Given that some of those design-build or design-build-operate contracts arguably have some issues around breach or delays of contracts which should raise penalties and potentially terminate the contracts, is that something Irish Water is pursuing? Perhaps Mr. Grant would give us his personal view on the very large number of DBs and DBOs that are in the system, and whether he thinks that is an efficient use of public money.

I am very concerned about the impact of all of this on service and the members of the community. There has been a tendency for Government to centralise the delivery of services. Two examples are the operation of the medical cards through the primary care reimbursement service, PCRS, and the transfer of responsibility for grants for third-level education from local authorities to Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI. We have seen real problems. In both of those instances we were told that the change would create efficiencies and make the service faster or more effective. In fact there are still huge problems with the medical card system , despite the fact that it has been in operation for some time. While SUSI had a large number of problems at the start, not all of those problems have been transferred. I wish to direct this question at the Department in particular, but it also concerns Irish Water. How can the witnesses reassure us that the types of efficiencies they are talking about will really deliver better quality service, given the poor track record of the State in other areas?

Lastly, Deputy Barry raised the issue of the constitutional protection of the public water system. If it is not an unfair question, I am interested in Mr. Grant's personal view as to whether a constitutional protection of the public water system would be reassuring to the people with whom he is negotiating with and to the public. Could the fears that many of us have around potential privatisation, whether by this Government or a future Government, be allayed? Does Mr. Grant think that would be a good thing for us to have?

Finally, I will very briefly raise two unrelated questions. I will not ask supplementary questions on these topics. Can we have a very quick update from the Department on the European Court of Justice legal action on wastewater treatment plans, and from Irish Water on the work ongoing to upgrade those plants? The Shannon to Dublin water pipeline consultation was meant to conclude with the publication of the preferred option last summer. Planning permission was meant to be pursued in September or October. This has not happened. Can the witnesses give us a brief update on that?