Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank my colleague, Deputy Barry Cowen, for tabling the motion and ensuring a debate on Irish Water but more importantly for the work he has done to ensure parliamentary scrutiny of Irish Water since last January. It was the Government's intention that there would be no such parliamentary scrutiny. Irish Water was designed to be above scrutiny and beyond questioning.

For all those Deputies of Government parties who spoke this morning about their genuine concerns or, to use the phrase of the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, who were scaremongering about Irish Water, I draw their attention to Thursday, 19 December 2013, to the passage of the Water Services (No. 2) Bill. That was the Bill that gave carte blancheto Irish Water to operate in the way it does. Every single Government Deputy who complained this morning and who has complained on the fifth floor and in Leinster House 2000 and has run to the media, supported the passage of the Bill. Every one of them supported the guillotining of the Bill and ensured there was only two hours to discuss it. When the combined Opposition walked out of the Chamber in protest at the guillotining of the Bill and the lack of scrutiny of Irish Water, many of the Deputies who were belching and bellyaching this morning were the ones making the smart comments and unprintable remarks that day. Their troubles with Irish Water go back to the way it was created.

It is not the fault of Irish Water that the debate was guillotined that morning. It is not John Tierney’s fault. Ironically, the then Minister of State who led the guillotine that morning was Deputy Fergus O’Dowd, who now wants to guillotine John Tierney. Irish Water was set up to be beyond scrutiny, reproach or answer. That is the reason we have the current mess. Deputies must go back to the day in question and reflect on their behaviour. The ball is very much at the Government’s door.

Reference was made to change in Irish Water and engagement with it but the Government amendment to the motion does not hint at any drive for change from Government quarters. There is no mention in the Government amendment of the bonus culture in Irish Water or, to use the Ervia phrase, the at-risk pay model. That sounds like a bonus, talks like a bonus and is a bonus. There is nothing to address that in the Government amendment. Several times this morning the Tánaiste was asked to criticise the bonus culture but she avoided doing so.

We can take it from the Government amendment that it believes the current allowances are adequate and appropriate, when anyone with a modicum of sense knows they are nowhere near what is required. They are nowhere near the kind of usage required by a family with adult children. If one’s adult children are on social welfare they receive a considerably reduced social welfare rate because they are living at home with their parents but no concession is made when it comes to the water allowance.

Concerns were expressed this morning by Government Deputies on bonuses, the manner in which Irish Water treats this House and customers, but when the time comes to vote on the Government amendment which approves the manner in which Irish Water operates, they will face the test. That is when all the words they have spoken will be put to the test. We will then see whether it is a time for words or action.

The Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, spoke about the communication strategy of Irish Water. He wants Irish Water to actively review its communication strategy, yet the amendment does not commit to bringing Irish Water under the control of the Committee of Public Accounts, as Deputy McGuinness outlined, and neither has a commitment been made to allow for Members to use the parliamentary questions system to inquire about Irish Water projects. It has been said that is not the responsibility of the Minister, Deputy Kelly, but rather the responsibility of Irish Water. There is no commitment to ensure Irish Water is accountable in the same way as the HSE and that it would have to come before the Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht four or five times a year to answer questions. The Government is happy with the status quo and how Irish Water is operating, in spite of all the criticism and leaks that come from meetings of Government parties.

Members of Government parties criticised the manner in which Irish Water has sought PPS numbers. The Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, explained the reason he believes such numbers are required. If one is aged over 18 in this country, one is on the electoral register. If one is aged under 18, one is not. If one is on the electoral register, surely one should be entitled to an adult allowance without handing over one’s PPS number? The Tánaiste said this morning that in the area of educational grants, SUSI requires PPS numbers. However, it is not a commercial semi-State body that is being sized up for potential sale down the line. It is a grant-awarding body. A commercial semi-State body such as Irish Water should not need one’s PPS number. It cannot be trusted with such numbers. If allowances are required, they could be provided through the Department of Social Protection, which controls the numbers.

I refer to the concern about PPS numbers expressed some weeks ago in the case in County Wicklow. This is a cause for concern; our offices always treat PPS numbers with great care. I refer to one of my constituents who spent 48 minutes on the phone to Irish Water, which is a commercial semi-State body, in an attempt to get a registration pack but had to give up after 48 minutes even though he still wants to get the pack. I do not understand how it is possible to trust a body to deal with PPS numbers when its personnel cannot answer a telephone call after 48 minutes.

The Government amendment to the motion misses the point. There is no confidence in Irish Water nor any confidence in a company that will spend its first year's revenues on staff and set-up costs and on paying for this bonus culture. There is no confidence in a company that will avoid spending its first year's revenue on dealing with the leaks. I refer to the notion of there having been a lack of investment in the infrastructure over past years. Ireland has become the major location for the pharmaceutical industry and this industry requires reliable water provision which was provided by the local authorities. Likewise the food industry needs a reliable water supply and this was provided by the local authorities. The local authorities responded to the challenge of providing good water supplies and they did so without the gold-plated structure which has been put in place.

I met the chairperson of a group water scheme with 150 members who has operated the scheme for 30 years. He reckons that he could do any job in Irish Water and he might take up the Minister's invitation to join the board of Irish Water. Group water schemes in general were managed with little drama and without bonuses and gold plating and they did the job. People look at the culture of entitlement and bonus in Irish Water and they see the cost of consultants whose advice is ignored and yet the people are being asked to pay for it. They are being asked to pay for something they do not have and neither have they the money to pay for it. They do not have confidence in the process and they realise that there is no scrutiny of the body to which they are paying their money. That is why it will not work. This is not a communications issue but rather there is a fundamental fault in the design envisaged by Fine Gael in 2009 in its NewERA document. This is the Government's chance to put the brakes on this policy, to restore people's faith in this House and in politics and a chance for the Government to state that it is hearing what the people are saying. The fault with the communications strategy is not entirely Irish Water's fault; it rests in the main with the Government.

See this speech in context