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

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I have four areas of questions. On the EPA reports, we in the committee have given a commitment over three years that every time the reports are published, one of the important steps we want to take is inviting all the stakeholders to interrogate the reports, not only to give the EPA another platform to raise the issues but also to hear directly from Irish Water and the Department. I am keen to hear their views in that regard.

In the appendices of the report, one can see the 132 areas where improvements are needed to resolve environmental priorities, the list of the 28 large urban areas that have not met the directive and the list of the 38 urban areas discharging untreated water. When we compare those with the 2016 report, we see that while there has been a reduction at one level, given that in 2016 some 148 urban areas were of concern to the EPA, the difficulty is that the reduction is not a straightforward net reduction and some areas are being added to the list. While some are being removed from the list, others are being added, which is counter-intuitive because one would have thought that as capital investment increases and the planning permission is processed, there should be a gradual overall reduction, without new areas slipping. It is a concern and I would be interested to hear the views of all three organisations on it.

I also draw the attention of Irish Water and the Department to one of Dr. Ryan's points, namely, a strong criticism that we are not addressing the issues fast enough. Notwithstanding the significant increase in capital investment, the speed is not enough, which confirms the European Court of Justice's decision.

While overall capital expenditure is increasing, is an adequate proportion of that going to tackle the various issues that are identified in the Environmental Protection Agency's report, particularly the larger number of the 132 urban areas where improvements are needed? I asked this on the last occasion too. For example, in 2014, 2015 and 2016, overall investments in upgrading wastewater treatment plants and networks reduced dramatically. That seems to have moved in the right direction, but can Mr. Gallen give us a breakdown as to what quantum of the capital investment is going into those particular works?

Is the Department in a position to give us an update on where matters stand with the European Court of Justice and the European Commission? I understand, even after the negative judgment of the ECJ, there is clearly a period of time where the State gets to demonstrate that it is getting its house in order. Is Mr. Ó Coigligh comfortable that the work the Department and its colleagues in Irish Water are doing is convincing the European Commission that we are on track? Is he comfortable that if we meet the targets, as he outlined, by 2021, we will not face significant European Court of Justice fines for further non-compliance? Can he give us an updated read on all of that?

In terms of the Shannon pipeline, two issues have been a regular feature of our discussions here. While most of us absolutely accept the need to diversify Dublin and the regions' water supply and to increase capacity, two of the issues we keep coming back to are whether there is any additional capacity in the aquifers in the midlands and eastern region, and whether there can be an acceleration of leakage reduction in the public water system. I understand that Irish Water or Ervia was going to conduct some updated surveys around aquifers, could they can give us information on that?

Every time we ask this question, we get the same answer that leakage reduction in the public system is difficult to achieve. In Temple Bar it is, but not all of Dublin is like Temple Bar. Will we see any acceleration of the leakage reduction in the public water system? None of that is an argument for or against the Shannon pipeline project. I again express the concern that if the pipeline goes ahead as is currently proposed, 40% of the water that will be pumped across the State will be lost immediately in the network, and that does not seem to make economic or environmental sense. Are we still in the same position or has there been any improvement?

From the Department's point of view, will we get the abstraction licensing legislation this year? Can Mr. Ó Coigligh give us an update on that? Will that delay the planning application? Mr. Gallen stated the application will go in at the end of this year. His predecessor was telling us that it would go in at an earlier stage. My understanding is the delay was not at Irish Water's end. It was to do with the abstraction legislation. That may or may not be the case. If witnesses can give us a view on that, it would be helpful.

Lastly, on the single utility, there are elements of that negotiation which are a matter for the employer and the unions, particularly in terms of the legacy costs that the CCMA is concerned with and the terms and conditions that the workers are concerned with. I will leave that to the WRC process. Many of us here have two very significant public policy concerns, on which I am interested in the witnesses' response. The first is whether the single utility is commercial or non-commercial. It makes a big difference. I understand - we have spoken about this previously - that Ervia and Irish Water's preference is for a commercial utility because it has borrowing capacity and maybe a little more independence from the annual budgetary cycle. Given that it is on balance sheet, I am not sure that is the case. Given that the borrowings are still more expensive if they are in the commercial context from the private sector, has any consideration been given to finding a way of ensuring funding security for the capital investment programme which we all agree is needed but in a non-commercial semi-State context? During the Joint Committee on Future Funding of Domestic Water Services, we spent quite a lot of time wondering how one could provide that funding certainty to a non-commercial public water utility, for example, through contractual relationships not unlike those with design-build operators where one guarantees capital funding, whether it is loan or Exchequer, over a set period of time and there is a legally binding commitment from the Department. If Irish Water had funding certainty, it probably would not care too much whether it was commercial or non-commercial. The value from the taxpayers' point of view is that borrowing is cheaper. It makes more financial sense. It probably would also assist the company with its IR issues with the trade unions because it would be covered by the public sector pay agreement.

I realise the referendum is a matter for Cabinet and Mr. Ó Coigligh probably cannot answer the question. Let me express the frustration anyway. We have been talking around this referendum now for over two years. Second Stage of the Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public Ownership) (No. 2) Bill 2016, in the name of Deputy Joan Collins and the rest of us, was passed in November 2016. It appears from the outside that the Department will have a difficult job convincing the unions about the package of issues that the WRC will look at if there is not a date for a referendum. That is a matter for Cabinet and for the Minister and the Attorney General. Many of us are growing increasingly frustrated that there is a promise of a referendum but the longer that gap stretches, the more difficult it will be for many, both in the political process and in the union and employee end of it, to take that political commitment seriously. I emphasise the importance of that referendum. It was the single biggest issue of submissions to the Government's expert group. It was a major preoccupation of the Joint Committee on Future Funding of Domestic Water Services. Mr. Ó Coigligh cannot tell us when it will happen and when the wording will be available, but without that the process will encounter fairly big difficulties.

I am particularly interested in Irish Water and the Department's responses to the EPA's concerns, particularly that list at the end of the appendices of the 2017 report.