Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Blaney mentioned, as reiterated by Mr. McGowan, that affordability was not part of the CER's consideration other than as directed by Government policy. Obviously that is what the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government set out in his water charges policy directive 2014. The CER abided by that policy when looking at allowances and so on. Ironically, affordability is nearly the biggest obstacle because the general public are concerned about their ability to pay for water. A lot of people are seriously concerned about getting another bill in their door. I shall add a point now that I was going to make later. Whatever the amount, the liability or charge should not arise at the same time the local property tax is sought, and preferably it should not arrive on 1 January or just after Christmas. I ask that because we must be sensitive to the fact that people are at the pin of their collars.

There is general acceptance of the broad principles on which CER operates and creates a pricing model which includes conservation. We should not waste water but it happens. People have discussed rainwater harvesting and the use of treated water for toilets, etc. We also know that we have a very poor pipe infrastructure. It is amazing to think that in modern Ireland, particularly in large centres of population and business, there is no regular supply of water due to the standard of infrastructure. It is only as the debate evolved that I realised that the problem was widespread and not just confined to my town in Mayo, and around County Mayo, but even in places located in the heart of Dublin. The system is failing and we had no systemic way to reinvest in it. Therefore, we appreciate that we need to invest in a structure because people want quality water and a proper water system.

I have an issue with a model that would pass on a cost, other than incidental costs, for the treatment of water and infrastructure set-up. I refer to excess staff which is an issue that has been highlighted already. Under service level agreements with local authorities, staff coming from the local authority water services department are excess to requirement. However, Uisce Éireann has estimated that it will require in the region of 1,700 staff and that means 4,300 staff will pass over under the service level agreements. If one applies the rationale that only costs associated with the production of water, including capital infrastructure which can be phased out over a basis, then I think excess staff - which has been estimated to cost €2 billion, up to 2026, when the service level agreements expire - should have no part in the CER's pricing of water. That is my submission which I made to the Minister when he sought public consultation on his directive. I do not think excess staff should be included in the price and it does not make sense to include them. That is aside from the subvention issue which obviously involves other Departments such as the Department of Social Protection. That model does not make sense. We must bear in mind that in the future more cost will be borne by people and there will be less subvention. That cost will become a very real factor, particularly at a time when there is less Government support, post-2016. However, the measure has yet to be decided. Does the CEO accept as reasonable and logical the premise that the cost of excess staff should be ring-fenced in terms of water pricing and removed from the equation? The cost should not be included when the CER decides the price of water.

Recently the head of Irish Water, Mr. John Tierney, issued a letter to local authorities. Basically, he stalled the process of taking charge of housing estates which is long overdue in many cases. With regards the great debate on parliamentarians versus the very local parochial and parish pump business, the fact is people come to us about lighting, footpaths, potholes and having no developer to resolve their problems. We have cases where local authorities want to take charge of housing estates. However, Mr. Tierney has said "No, we have to develop a protocol". Irish Water did not mind installing meters outside people's houses in those estates. Therefore, if there is a problem with the pipeworks then Irish Water needs to say it will take over the entire system. It wants to charge and keep the money but offload any problems with the system on to the local authority or the residents of the estate, in some shape or form. That idea must be knocked on its head and Irish Water asked to carry the can.

Let me refer to the idea that Irish Water will not take over a problematic system of, for example, 100 houses in an estate where the developer has not installed the correct pipework. Naturally, the developer, if in existence, should be held responsible and the local authority should be allowed to deal with the developer.

The idea that Irish Water might contemplate not taking responsibility is unacceptable. The other part of that letter indicated that in the case of cluster developments, which would be more relevant in rural areas where there may be a proprietary effluent treatment unit as opposed to a main sewer, it has no intention of taking over the pipework system and wastewater treatment system. That is unacceptable. If it is doing the job, which we are all heralding saying there are good points, these are the difficulties that have to be overcome. It should take responsibility for the whole network, including the treatment plants and should not pick and choose. It is taking money from people on the one hand for these services and yet is not responsible for them. The shortcomings, whether in the wastewater treatment plan or the pipework, would not appear on a capital programme, whatever its priority. At the outset, it is suggesting there will be no priority for these because it may not take them in charge. That is wrong. I mentioned flexibility and timing of bills. Timing is very important.

The final point is one to which I think I know the answer. It is not a new issue but it is one that is of concern to people, that is, the treatment of water, what goes into it and especially the fluoridation of water and safe water. The issue of safe water was mentioned at the start. Does the Commission for Energy Regulation have a view on the fluoridation of water or is it kicking it back to the Department of Health again? It is an issue we have engaged with at times and we get that answer. There are different views on it. Given that people are being asked to pay for water it is important that there is a definitive view from the commission's point of view as it appears to be getting involved in all sorts of things, prioritisation, making sure there is a stable environment for investment and so on, bar affordability as was pointed out. On safety grounds, there are people who are complaining. We do not get to say what goes into this. A public health consideration should prevail as we have a more nuanced understanding of these issues.