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

I thank Mr. Berney for his presentation. It is important that the Oireachtas committee is having this debate, both in the session we had with Irish Water and the Department previously and this session with the unions. It is important we make it clear that it is not the business of this committee to get involved in the industrial relations issues and the negotiations that will take place between the unions, and Irish Water and the Government. We are, therefore, coming to this from the point of view of public policy and the impact this proposal may have on a vital public service, the employees in the service and the users of the service.

I will not give a view on the proposal. I am more interested to hear Mr. Berney's responses to a series of questions and perhaps to tease out some of what he said in his opening statement.

The Irish Water proposal is to reduce the number of full-time equivalents working in water services by approximately 1,000 between now and 2021 and to bring that forward.

At a time of increased investment in upgrading the water system through the increased capital programme for Irish Water, significant strains on the system, whether in Skerries in north County Dublin recently or Louth or elsewhere, we would expect more staff to be recruited to the sector. What would be the impact of taking 1,400 full-time equivalents out of the direct delivery of service? What would be the operational impact on current levels of service delivery and future plans for capital improvement and upgrade?

Irish Water claims that the savings to the State from that course of action will be €70 million annually. There was some confusion in the committee on the last occasion when we asked whether that represented a net or gross saving. When we asked the question of the Department, it said that it represented net savings. We asked what happens, for example, in local authorities if there are redeployments, rather than voluntary redundancies, and which body bears the cost of that. We wondered whether it would be financed from existing local authority resources or from another source. The Department then got itself into a kerfuffle and said that it would be a matter for negotiation. The amount that would be saved is unclear. Has Mr. Berney any further information which he can share with us about that?

One of the main concerns is that if there is a transfer of staff from the direct employment by the water providers, a consequent increase in the use of private contractors could follow. Irish Water has clearly indicated that its preference is for directly employed staff for service delivery but that contractors should be used for capital upgrade and improvement work. Is that a concern for the union? What is its view on that matter?

I have an ongoing concern that as the company is restructured, areas of expenditure that traditionally would have been operational expenditure, particularly minor works, repair works and upgrade works, are being shifted across to the capital expenditure side, which is being used to show savings, which are not necessarily savings at all on the operational end. Can any witness respond to that or give his or her view?

Does this proposal have implications for career progression for staff? Does it affect the need for more apprenticeships? How do we ensure that people going into water services will have a clear career progression path?

I share Mr. Berney's view on local authorities. Part of the difficulty in recent years is that more services have been taken away from local authorities, including bin collection and housing delivery. What would be the impact on the functioning of local authorities if these staff and this core activity were taken from them?

What will be the impact on the public? We have been told that this proposal will increase efficiency. It is concerned with removing duplication and increasing productivity. Those arguments were used when student grants were taken away from local authorities and when medical cards were taken away from local health centres. In both of those instances, the opposite of what was intended occurred. There was a long period at the beginning when there was increased confusion, lack of capacity and an inability to deliver the same direct service face to face, but there have also been ongoing problems caused by the increased distance from the public. If one was to take those functions away from the local authorities there might be consequences. In some rural local authorities people know their water services workers. They are part of the local communities and are embedded in the life of those communities. What would be the impact in that instance?

On the flip side, is it Mr. Berney's view that this could provide an opportunity to radically transform the delivery of water services and the structure of the water utility to create a fully non-commercial semi-State entity? Should the committee explore and raise this with the Minister and others? Would there be benefits to that approach?

Almost everyone on the committee shares the belief that there is a need for a referendum. There is a certain frustration, because even though the Oireachtas agreed on Second Stage, without any opposition, in October 2016, to proceed, there has been a long delay. Perhaps Mr. Berney could elaborate on that. Why would a referendum on water be so important for the unions, their members and their users and services? What would that constitutional protection mean in real terms?