Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle should have sympathy for me, because I have lost most of my constituency. I thank him for his sympathy, however.

This Government has engaged in more than ten U-turns on the implementation of water charges. Clearly, it is making up water policy as it goes along. There were even last-minute changes to the legislation before us today, which gives effect to the recent raft of changes announced by the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly. It is clear that its original conservation goals and capital infrastructure plans have all been abandoned by the Government.

There is one certainty around this entire debacle regarding the imposition of water charges, namely, that Irish Water has lost the confidence of the public. I mentioned in a previous debate in this House that Deputy Fergus O’Dowd, who, as then Minister of State, pioneered the legislation through this House almost 12 months ago, has since termed the establishment of Irish Water an "unmitigated disaster". Any major public utility must have the confidence of the public and consumers if it is to do its job properly and provide the service for which it was established. Such confidence is an absolute requirement, but it is absolutely lacking in regard to Irish Water.

We are discussing this new Bill almost 12 months since the Government rammed the original legislation through this House. Repeatedly, in the Oireachtas and elsewhere, Ministers have referred to the mammoth task of establishing Irish Water, yet they were prepared to give Dáil Éireann less than three hours to debate the necessary legislative measures. That was a decision endorsed in this House by all Fine Gael and Labour Party Deputies. The Government refused to accept our urgings that an ability to pay clause should be included or our warnings that the Irish Water model would be much too large and cumbersome and end up saddling the taxpayer with substantial expenditure on which there would be no direct return to consumers and customers. We now know what is the reality . Why did we not have a proper and adequate debate more than 12 months ago on this major change of policy, a policy that will see a completely new delivery model for water, particularly when service level agreements were being put in place with local authorities at that time to enable them to deliver the service and carry out the necessary infrastructure works for the following two decades? Months ago we were told by the Government in this House and elsewhere that the Commission for Energy Regulation would set the charges. What are its responsibilities today?

We should reflect on the message that was sent out to young, qualified people, many unfortunately unemployed at present, when they learned that individuals who had retired from the public service were being recruited by Irish Water on large remuneration. Indeed, in many instances, those recruits brought their gratuities with them from their employment with local authorities. Week after week, legitimate questions were asked in this House and in Seanad Éireann about these matters, but the answers were always far from adequate. Over that period, how many different responses did the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and other Ministers give to the same questions? For months we heard Ministers and Fine Gael and Labour Party Members claim there was nil or negligible investment in the previous decade in upgrading the water network. Finally, two weeks ago, the Tánaiste acknowledged in this House that there had been substantial investment in the water services programme by the previous Government, investment which exceeded €5 billion over a decade. Every part of the country benefitted from that investment, with a vast amount of new infrastructure put in place and existing infrastructure upgraded.

Of course, there is no denying that the water system needs ongoing investment and maintenance and new infrastructure to replace that which is outdated. However, we had to listen many times to Government Members make other erroneous comments in regard to the provision of water services throughout the country. It was repeatedly and incorrectly suggested, for instance, that water supplies never transcended county boundaries, be they public water supplies or water supplies provided through group water schemes. I have referred previously to several examples of such in my own county. The Aughawillan group scheme in south County Leitrim, for example, supplies houses and farm holdings in Cavan. Likewise, the Castlerahan-Mountnugent-BallyjamerduffGroup water scheme in County Cavan supplies houses in County Meath, particularly in the Oldcastle area. In the Bunnoe area of County Cavan, meanwhile, group water schemes transcend the boundaries of Cavan and Monaghan. Not alone do water services cross county boundaries, but they also cross jurisdictional boundaries. There has been co-operation over many years, for instance, between Cavan County Council and Fermanagh District Council in the provision of water to the villages of Belcoo and Blacklion, with both villages and their catchment areas receiving water supply from the same source.

It is worth repeating in this House that group water schemes, in which there was massive investment from 1997 to the late 2000s, are an example of great partnership between local communities, local authorities, the National Federation of Group Water Schemes and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. In the decade up to 2011, there was an investment of €177 million by government in the provision of water, sewerage and group scheme services in County Cavan, a small rural county with a small population. In excess of €130 million was invested in County Monaghan in the provision of water programmes in the same period. That investment in both counties - an investment, I am sure, that was replicated throughout the country - was very necessary and very welcome. Those schemes are providing water services up to a very high standard in towns, villages and rural parishes. In these two counties that make up my constituency, local communities have worked closely in partnership with the county councils, the National Federation of Group Water Schemes and with many excellent officials from the Department. I have attended many meetings in rural parish halls over the years where officials came along and worked with local communities, local councillors and local authority officials in developing programmes to roll out new group water schemes or merge existing schemes.

We should put on the record of the Dáil again the excellent contribution made by so many officials from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and local authorities in working with good local community leaders.

The basic philosophy emanating from the local communities, local authorities and officials in the Department with whom I have had contact over the years was to work together and put in place the best possible services for communities, be they urban or rural. The various groups - if we want to call them that - worked together. The group water schemes were merged, and those concerned were able to source very substantial investment from the Department to upgrade, extend or provide new group water schemes. Those people wanted to make available through their schemes water of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the needs of their consumers.

In some instances, group water schemes may be the source of supply for smaller towns and villages. Similarly, a public supply may be the source for group water schemes. An innovative and necessary programme of assistance for group water schemes was introduced through the subsidy paid to local authorities towards the operational costs of the schemes. That subsidy, or revenue stream, is absolutely essential to ensure that group schemes, which in some instances provide a water supply through difficult terrain to sparsely populated areas, remain viable. The group water scheme infrastructure is vital to rural communities. I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Paudie Coffey, can assure us that under the new arrangements proposed by the Government, the operational subsidy or revenue stream for group water schemes will continue in the same format as has worked so well since 1998. This issue is of particular importance in my constituency. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Deputy Michael Kitt, has spoken on many occasions about the importance of the group scheme network and the need for the revenue stream to ensure the schemes remain viable.

We should recognise the significant contribution made by so many people, a contribution that continues to be made by people in every rural parish through their work as volunteers and committee members of group water schemes. The group water scheme model is exactly the opposite of what the Irish Water super-quango has become. Some years ago in this House, I suggested that instead of establishing a super-quango, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government could have ensured that the best practices of local authorities, which had a good record in the delivery of water services, were replicated throughout the country. Surely it was the remit of the Department to ensure local authorities adapted to and adopted best practices. Political leadership at local level was needed to ensure that model of delivery was put in place.

Cavan County Council and other councils throughout the country had a very good record of delivery in regard to water services. Why not continue with those systems and ensure that the less well-functioning councils achieve the same standards as some of their fellow councils? It is very clear that the establishment of the Irish Water super-quango has been a complete debacle, and the Government has lost the support and confidence of the public. It is questionable whether the proposed revenue from water charges of €140 million net will be achieved. There will be no investment in infrastructure from this revenue source. The €540 million wasted on water meters that will not be used and the €172 million spent on establishing the Irish Water super-quango could have been put to good use in upgrading existing water infrastructure that needs to be updated and modernised. How can one justify the expenditure of €172 million on setting up Irish Water and an additional burden of €46 million every year on wages to keep it going?

In November 2009, Fine Gael decided on the establishment of Irish Water as a flagship policy. It has turned out to be a complete disaster and a very costly one for the Irish taxpayer. The principle of water conservation has been completely abandoned by the Government. Some 500,000 meters have been installed to date and another 500,000 have been contracted. Some €540 million will be spent on water meters that will not be used until 2019 at the earliest, and, if I read the comments of the Minister for Finance correctly, perhaps even later.

The €540 million spent was borrowed from the National Pensions Reserve Fund and must be paid back, understandably with interest. A further €25 million in interest payments and fees will be charged in September of next year. That money could have been put to good use in so many other projects. Given the many other demands on public funding and the challenges facing so many Departments to meet the requirements of capital investment programmes, this expenditure on metering is a scandalous waste of money. Those contracts should be reviewed by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

It is time to abolish Irish Water and suspend charges pending a full review of the policy. These latest U-turns underline the complete mess the Government has made of a very important resource, water. Fianna Fáil consistently opposed the creation of Irish Water. The controversies concerning consultancy costs, bonuses and overstaffing at the super-quango have borne out our fears. Those fears have been articulated all along by our party spokesperson, Deputy Barry Cowen. What we need to establish in this country is a new mutually owned holding company, owned by the customers. The company would set national standards, plan capital investment and borrow on behalf of the local authorities. Delivery of the service would be returned to the local authorities, which would avail of the local knowledge and experience of their own personnel. This model would also have the advantage of being subject to local democratic accountability. We know local authorities are being stripped - wrongly in my view - of the capacity to deliver local services that should be at the very heart of their remit.

See this speech in context