Terence Flanagan (Dublin North East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

We need an investigation into the establishment and setting up of Irish Water. In light of the current debacle in this regard, the public deserve and demand accountability in regard to who made mistakes, in order to ensure that history does not repeat itself. The former Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, has been very vocal in setting out his stall and in setting out the background to the initiation of Irish Water. I was disappointed to read that he was never delegated powers and that mistakes he had flagged and highlighted occurred and were ignored.

The Taoiseach has said that the protests taking place currently are about more than water. I agree. When we speak to people in our constituencies, we learn that the water issue is the final straw. People are annoyed and frustrated by how democracy is operating in our country. They deserve and demand reform and call on the Government to commit to the various promises made by it at the last general election.

A super-quango has been set up as a result of the legislation passed last year. Like many other Members, I supported that legislation in good faith. However, I did not vote for a blank chequebook for Irish Water. We have seen from the amount of money squandered on consultants that history is repeating itself. The same firms are being used consistently by the Government for advice despite the fact that the expertise probably exists already within the public service. If the public service was trusted and a proper skills assessment was carried out, I am sure this would indicate that the right people exist to provide the level of expertise required. The public service needs to believe and trust in itself more rather than always seeking outside advice. The public are annoyed by that waste.

A single water authority is a good idea, and there are efficiencies to be gained as a result of the standing down of the existing 34 water authorities. The Minister has referred to economies of scale and to what may happen as a result of the various efficiencies achieved. People are obviously unhappy to note the variation in water charges currently depending on where one lives. A single authority will change this and ensure that everyone pays the same charge.

I have a concern regarding authorisation from the European Commission for the change in the model for Irish Water and in regard to how the borrowing and funding model of Irish Water has changed. My colleague Deputy Denis Naughten asked why the Government did not set up a not-for-profit company rather than a commercial State utility, and I agree. If it had set up a not-for-profit company, it would have brought the public with it every step of the way, as people would understand that profits were not being made at the expense of taxpayers.

The legislation for Irish Water was rushed through in a hasty manner. An education programme should have been put in place first to encourage people to conserve water, explain the value and importance of not wasting treated water and explain the importance of rain harvesting. The Government could have introduced incentives and grant schemes to encourage conservation and rain harvesting. I believe no charges should have been introduced before all meters were installed. If that had happened, the Government would have been in a much better position to initiate charges.

In regard to funding for water infrastructure over the past ten or 20 years, there is little information or accountability as to how money was spent or about the gap in the budget currently. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government should set out this information and explain how much has been spent on upgrading water infrastructure and how much it costs to provide water. We know that water treatment costs amount to €1.2 billion annually, but what staff and other costs are involved in providing treated water?

If that had been outlined and given to people, there would have a better acceptance of water charges and they would have known what the gap was and what they were going to be paying for.

The issue of PPS numbers was a big bone of contention for people, so I am delighted that has been rowed back on. Senator Feargal Quinn had introduced a Bill on that issue, which I acknowledge. People were very annoyed about the PPS numbers. They felt it was one Government Department speaking to another in the first instance, and as the Government already had that information, it was particularly annoying that they would be asked for the same information again.

The conservation of water is not being promoted by the charge. One household that leaves a tap running will pay the exact same as another household that conserves water and uses it in an sparing manner. No conservation measure is included in the Bill, which is very annoying. As a previous speaker mentioned, there is huge difficulty involved in trying to read the meter, even for an able-bodied person. Anyone who is elderly or disabled would have huge problems in trying to know how much water they are being billed for and where they will stand when their bill arrives.

As Deputy Peter Mathews stated earlier, one year after the initial legislation was rushed through, here we are, making amendments to that original legislation. The old adage that rushed legislation is bad legislation certainly comes to mind. It is bizarre that anyone who is in a group scheme will be paid money as a consequence of this new legislation, with some households being paid between €20 and €60. If that is the case, it is morally wrong when so many people need money, for example, carers, who are getting a very harsh deal from this Government and who could do with this extra money, and those on medical cards.

With regard to the billing of households, why is there not a net charge rather than a requirement to apply for the €100 conservation payment? That will undoubtedly cause a huge amount of extra administration, which is probably not necessary if the net effect is that people will only have to pay €60 and €160.

We know water is necessary for all human life. I am glad that people will not be disconnected or that the water supply will not be cut down to a trickle because we all need it and use it daily. What leeway is there in the legislation to help those who may be in financial difficulty or poverty and have difficulty paying their bills?

I agree with the polluter pays principle. Fairness is not a full part of this legislation because conservation of water is not being catered for. This will encourage people to waste water from now until 2018, not conserve it. We all want to see clean and drinkable water, and that is very much welcomed.

See this speech in context