Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the many Deputies on all sides of the House for their contributions. The discussion has ranged far and wide and I will not be able to address every issue but, in the time available, I will try to deal with the main issues involved.

I wish to turn first to the question of capital investment in our water services. Many Deputies have referred to the fact that billions of euro have been invested in water services infrastructure in the past, which is the case. We all know this investment has been funded from taxation. The question is whether we have invested enough and, if not, how we will going to fund the infrastructure deficit to meet the challenge of fixing the water system. Where will the money come from? The answer to the first question is patently obvious. We have simply not invested anything near what is required to deliver a modern, efficient and reliable water and sewerage system across the country. If we had, we would not have boil water notices all over the country, we would not have water supply and capacity problems, especially in Dublin city, we would not have unacceptably high levels of leakage in the system, and we would not have raw sewage entering rivers and seas all around the country.

The fundamental issue here is that we need additional funding for water services. In answering the question as to how we will secure the level of investment we need, it is simply not credible to say we will deliver it through general taxation, when we know that we have not managed it for decades. We will be failing in our duty as public representatives and we will be failing future generations if we take the easy option and the easy way out and continue to apply approaches that have not delivered in the past. Customer charges, set at a modest level, with certainty into the future, provide the mechanism through which the investment we need can be secured. The revenue from customer charges will allow Irish Water to borrow to fund an expanded capital programme.

They can plan strategically over a 25 year horizon, which allows for better use of the capital programme to develop much-needed projects all over the country. This is not a new model for Ireland, as ESB Networks in the network renewal programme has already demonstrated how a national utility manages its assets and can upgrade them. The money for the renewal programme was borrowed off balance sheet on the capital markets and this is the same principle that will apply to Irish Water. That is why we need charges and a national utility. The set-up investment in asset management systems is essential for capital investment planning and will have considerable benefits in project costs and timeliness of delivery.

I can give examples of projects where we already know that Irish Water's approach to capital investment will result in real savings compared with previous local authority plans. The Ringsend sewage treatment project will result in a saving of €170 million; the greater Dublin area drainage scheme will achieve savings of €30 million; the Cork city water supply scheme will see a saving of almost €22 million; the Navan mid-Meath water supply scheme will result in a saving of almost €10 million, while the Kerry central water supply scheme will achieve savings of almost €9 million. The local authority approach to these projects would have been far more costly than that of Irish Water and these five projects alone will yield savings of nearly €250 million, far exceeding the cost of setting up Irish Water and equal to the entire capital spend by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government on the water services investment programme in 2013. Local authorities were not able to plan in this way and did not have certainty of funding in the long term which a utility can achieve with its capacity to borrow on the markets and plan over a longer period. Nationally, project development largely focused on county rather than regional or national solutions and economies of scale were difficult to achieve. With access to borrowing on capital markets, Irish Water can ensure more projects can be advanced and funded over time. This will underpin better regional development and consistency of service across the country.

The approach to water charges that the Government has decided on was framed to ensure charges would be modest, affordable and certainfor the future. The Commission for Energy Regulation has reviewed the operational costs of Irish Water until 2016 and set challenging efficiency targets. All of Irish Water's customers - those who will pay and those who will not - need to be treated fairly. With regard to those who will not pay, it is important to draw a distinction between those who may find it difficult to pay and those who will simply refuse to pay. For those who may have difficulties in paying, there will be easy payment options and Irish Water will engage with those who will want to agree payment plans which are manageable from their perspective. For those who will choose not to pay, the Government will be introducing legislation to provide a range of mechanisms through which they can be pursued. The compliant customers who will pay their charges will expect nothing less.

It is regrettable that some Members have indicated that they have chosen not to pay. Sinn Fein's position on the issue is particularly untenable. Yesterday I listened to its Members speak about having had what they described as "a consistent position" on water charges, but this could not be further from the truth. In the past few weeks Deputy Gerry Adams wondered if he was liable for water charges, before accepting that he would pay them; now Sinn Féin Members are indicating their opposition to the charges and intention not to pay. That is some definition of consistency, but why am I surprised, given how Sinn Féin manipulates the English language every time it faces a difficult issue?

See this speech in context