Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the commissioners and the director for their presentation today. At the outset, I also welcome the fact that they agreed to return to the committee once the final submission of the Uisce Éireann water charges plan has been made to them. It is in the best interests of transparency and public debate on the charging plan.

We are debating a new national utility that will manage a reformed water system. No doubt the existing system has been identified as being a broken system. It has been inconsistent in terms of the state of the network where it has been identified that over 40% of the water goes into the ground through leakage even though we spend more than €1 billion per annum on it.

I acknowledge CER's track record. The only comparator is the electricity sector. When CER was established in 1999, I would suggest that the electricity networks may have been inconsistent and substandard in many areas around the country. Am I correct in assuming that CER will adopt a role with the objective of trying to achieve a consistent standard and quality of utility throughout the country, similar to that which it adopted when it took its role in the energy sector?

Mr. McGowan stated that CER will not allow Irish Water to expend money inefficiency. Does that apply to the set-up of Irish Water as well? There has been much controversy around the moneys expended on the establishment of the national database and the asset management system for Irish Water. Has he reviewed that? Is that seen as a necessity and a good investment in terms of where Irish Water is starting? It would be important to clarify that for the committee because there was much criticism and controversy around that. I believe it is important as a benchmark or as a starting point. One needs a properly audited oversight system or asset management system. Mr. McGowan might clarify that point.

Many areas I want to discuss have been covered and I will not go back over them. I have three areas they might address. One relates to the important customer charter or customer service obligations. I note at the outset of the presentation that CER states one of its duties is to protect the interests of customers. That is an important role and function of CER. When it states that, the obvious objective is the protection of water standard and quality for the customer. The three areas I would see as important are water pressure, water quality in terms of human consumption and water capacity. The witnesses mentioned that the discounts that are envisaged will only apply where water is not fit for human consumption, but I would argue that where water pressure is not adequate, it is not fit for domestic use. If, for example, there is only a dribble coming out of a tap, surely compensation or a discount should apply. The same may be said of capacity. If there is not enough water in a supply to service a domestic household adequately, surely there should be compensation for that household, such as a discount. Is there room here for a graded discount system, from where water is not fit for human consumption to pressure, water quality, capacity and other issues?

I understand similar standards apply in the customer charter for electricity supplies. Is that a fair comparison? Could the witnesses elaborate on that? Where the customer is the focal point and if the quality of supply is not sufficient in the three areas I mentioned, surely there should be a compensatory element in the supply contract. Will that be considered?

The other area I want to touch on is mixed use and other unusual scenarios. We will all be aware of the shared service supply where the supply is at the back of houses and for which CER will use an assessed means at present. I am conscious of some places where there is not a public water supply but there is a connection to the public waste water system. Given there is no meter, how is it envisaged that will be assessed? Will it be looked at on the basis of the number of occupants in the house or how will that be worked out? No doubt these scenarios will arise around the country.

The third area I want to touch on is the capital investment priorities outlined by Uisce Éireann. CER may well have good intentions and priorities in this area, but I refer back to its duty to protect the interests of customers. When I see that, I would contend that this involves the interests of all customers, both urban and rural. While the priorities for Uisce Éireann might be one matter, the public would depend on CER to ensure there is equality of delivery of capital investment throughout the country. In other words, those in towns and villages who have a real need in terms of water should not be forgotten and CER has an important role as the regulator to ensure Uisce Éireann's investment priorities look after those as much as the larger urban centres. Perhaps Mr. McGowan would comment on that.

Does CER have access to the asset management database that was mentioned earlier or does it depend on reports from Uisce Éireann? Does CER have independent access to such database?