Dáil debates

Thursday, 7 February 2013

Water Services Bill 2013 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

4:15 pm

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Yesterday, we debated a Bill that provided for the creation of another quango. I made some points on how that Bill might be changed. Today, we face the same question about another quango. The Bill makes reference to a board of directors and all that goes with it, which will be very costly. I see it every Thursday at the Committee of Public Accounts. I gave the example yesterday of the energy, communication and aviation regulators all getting approximately €180,000 per year. Some of their staff are getting in excess of €100,000 a year. They are meant to regulate the industry and have consideration for the taxpayer, the end user, the customer. In this case I wonder how much of their costs - I am sure all of their costs - will be considered when striking the rate for a cubic metre of water. However, that matter is not clarified in the Bill. The Bill before us yesterday, as with this one, lacked any great detail. The experience at committees of this House is that when we discuss these matters with the regulator the last person to be considered is the end user of the service - in this case water - and the payer for the service of the regulator and all the costs involved. That is the first person in terms of paying for the increases. We need to focus on the other side of the balance sheet. We need to minimise the costs of the commercial or bureaucratic structure before we ask the consumer for an increase or more money, in this case, for water. However, that does not happen. The history of charges and regulators indicates that the customer ultimately pays a substantial amount of money.

The Bill makes no reference to the amount of water that will be given free to a household. That should be specified because once responsibility is handed to a company, it is only interested in profitability. For an example of that, we need look no further than the local authorities which charged businesses €3 per cubic metre for water in and water out. Speakers on the Government side have highlighted the various SMEs who have to pay a staggering amount of money in water charges simply because they are asked to pay for the total cost. With the exception of the Comptroller and Auditor General, nobody considered that this was all treated water at a very significant cost to the State being put through an infrastructure that was so badly damaged it was delivering very poor value for money for the State. However, as long businesses, including SMEs, were paying, nobody minded the infrastructure. Even though it was highlighted by the Comptroller and Auditor General, it still was not changed. Unless these details are specified in the Bill, there will be no controls and we will be back in committees of the House arguing on behalf of the consumer that they are getting short-changed given the services and costs involved.

Section 15(1) on accounts and auditing makes no reference to the Committee of Public Accounts or to a right of that committee to investigate costs or the accounts. It makes reference to other committees and states that the subsidiary is also required to keep "special accounts as the Minister [for the Environment, Community and Local Government] may, with the consent of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, from time to time direct." That is three different Ministers commenting on the accounts but no real accountability. It does not require it to submit its audit to the Comptroller and Auditor General and that may be taken up by the Committee of Public Accounts. That facility and arrangement need to be clearly specified in the legislation. It must be unequivocal with no ifs and buts so that we can audit every cent of taxpayers' money used in the administration of this utility company. In local government in excess of €4 billion goes through that system with no accountability to the Comptroller and Auditor General, which is unacceptable. Every Bill presented to this House should address the accountability issue appropriately and beyond any doubt.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.