Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Last night I had a good read of the contribution made by the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly - that is what I do in my leisure time - and while 20 minutes will not be enough to speak about it I will make a start. Approximately six weeks ago I described Irish water as a dysfunctional monster. Sadly, it is still drawing oxygen and it has not yet been slain. When anyone recalls the term of the Government, water will be one of the issues that will come to mind, as will the manner in which it has been dealt with from the start. For many people who have examined it closely it beggars belief.

Despite the efforts to rewrite the history of it all it is not yet palatable for the people. I compliment the civil servant who wrote the excellent piece for the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly. It is a powerful work of spin. It is really well done. It almost makes it sound as though this could be good, but I do not believe it. The Minister started by stating the Government's objective is to make the new domestic water charges system simpler and fairer. Most people do not think it is fair because taxation is fair when done through a progressive system in which the ability to pay is a factor. This is the case with income tax. Indirect taxation is less fair because those with the least money pay the same tax as those with the most money. If one goes to a shop one pays 23% VAT. This is the case for the person who is unable to afford enough heating for the house in the winter and the person with loads of money. The water charge amounts to much the same type of tax; everyone pays the same amount irrespective of ability to pay. The element of fairness disappears pretty quickly.

Calling the €100 that will be refunded through the social welfare system a conservation grant is a new venture in wordplay. At this stage we all know that we have abandoned conservation for the next four years. We have thrown it to the wind. Approximately one month ago, the Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, made a very good point when he stated if one did not pay for water it would be like not paying for lights, and if one did not have to pay an electricity bill one would leave the lights on all night. Is he now afraid people will leave the bath running all night because it will not cost any more to do so and they will pay the same price at the end of the year? If someone has a swimming pool and he or she likes to have fresh water in it he or she can refill it every week and have the same bill at the end of the year. Conservation, which was one of the guiding principles of Irish Water at the outset, has been abandoned.

I found something very interesting about rainwater harvesting on Dublin City Council's website. The end of a piece on the website stated, "All rainwater harvesting systems must be approved in advance. If you would like to discuss your options for rainwater harvesting system please contact Irish Water at the details below." It looks like we will patent harvesting. We would not like people to collect rainwater in case they might eventually save money by purchasing less water from Irish Water when it eventually charges for it. This seems ludicrous. There was a bit of an outcry about this from conservationists, and lo and behold it has disappeared from the website. The last line has been removed, which is very interesting.

Given that we acknowledge storing and distributing water is expensive one would think we would do a lot to promote harvesting. Truth be told we have done very little, even in the past ten years when it has been very obvious to all that harvesting is a good idea. In the last big apartment complex we built we collected the roof water for toilets, washing machines and dishwashers. It was a pretty novel idea. It was not cheap, which is one of the reasons people did not do it, but it should have been obligatory. The State should insist on harvesting in such projects. It makes sense. It is almost four years since the Government came into office. I am not saying the previous Government was any different, because it was not interested in harvesting either, but there have been no proactive measures in the past four years to address the issue of harvesting.

We have spoken about retrofitting toilets to introduce a double flush, but it has not happened. It is a huge area as a massive amount of water is wasted by a full flush when a single would do. This retrofitting is very labour extensive and it would have created many jobs. We have spoken a lot about fixing the pipes. To the best of my knowledge, to date there has been absolutely no programme to address the leaks. The Government states Irish Water will fix the pipes, but why was this not done first? Two years ago I asked the Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin, to make a commitment to fix the leaks before a meter was ever put in the ground, and he stated it made business sense, which it does. If more than 40% of the water is leaking into the ground it beggars belief that any State body would decide to let the water continue to leak into the ground and spend more than €500 million - approximately €600 million - on the installation of meters. We could have fixed an awful lot of pipes for €600 million. Surely it is not a mad idea to suggest we should have fixed the pipes first.

When I was reading the Minister's piece last night I came across a mention of one free site visit to fix a leak between the mains and wall of the house. I do not know the answer to this, which is why I am asking the question, and perhaps the Minister of State will be able to get an answer for me. Will Irish Water fix just one leak? In many cases the pipes are in very poor condition, and when one fixes a pipe in poor condition when the pressure is turned back on a different point of the pipe becomes vulnerable and the pipe springs a leak somewhere else.

There is no point in fixing leaks in any pipes put in many years ago. We should replace all the pipes; otherwise, there will be other leaks soon afterwards. If a customer or tenant only gets one free visit, then the second and third visits will be expensive, especially if they keep fixing a leak every time it appears. Those pipes will need to be replaced. The same goes for most of the pipes in Dublin. God knows I have looked at enough of them. I know of one 4-inch cast iron pipe that is in very poor condition. It is not a matter of fixing leaks in those pipes; it is a matter of replacing the system and putting in a new line. A new line must be installed in a different position and the old line abandoned, because it is dysfunctional. Most of the bore in the 4-inch pipe is down to approximately 2 inches with corrosion. In all the years that we worked in Dublin, anywhere we went in the city centre, the pipes below our feet were leaking, but there was no money to fix them at the time. They were not fixed. They are still there.

Much play was made of the site in Ringsend where Irish Water is going to save all of us €170 million. This is not a fair representation of the facts. Much work went into the thinking behind the treatment plant in Ringsend. Eventually, the engineers from Dublin City Council, An Bord Pleanála and the Environmental Protection Agency came up with a scheme that was acceptable all round, despite much opposition from the Sandymount residents, and rightly so - they have every right to be concerned about a development in their area which might impact on them in a negative way. Now, €170 million is to be saved by doing away with the long sea outfall project. Following all the research done in the years leading up to the project, it was deemed that the footprint of the site was too small to deal with the challenges faced and that the site for the wastewater treatment plant that was to be built was not big enough to accommodate the challenges. That is why they came up with the long sea outfall idea, and the EPA agreed. Irish Water has said that we should do away with the long sea outfall because it will cost €170 million. It is scrapping that part of the plan, but going ahead with the rest of it not knowing whether it will work properly. The people in Irish Water are going against all the evidence available to them. They have more or less said that they will magic up a solution with new technology to make it work on the existing footprint, in a fashion beyond the capabilities of all the clever people who came before them. Perhaps it is possible and perhaps Irish Water can do it, but the betting money is that there will be a part two to the Ringsend project. If there is a part two, it will cost more than €170 million, as it always does. When a group visits a site once to do a project, it costs less than when they visit twice. I expect that someday the outfall will eventually be built.

If Irish Water goes ahead with half the project, which is the plan at the moment, to save €170 million, will the representatives of the EPA and An Bord Pleanála be happy with that? Have they signed off on it? That will be interesting to see. More interesting, will the residents of Sandymount be happy with the new project? They were not happy with the last one, when the worst of the waste was being taken 9 km out to sea. Now it ain't going out at all; it is going right on their doorstep. It is going to the edge of the waterfront. Will the residents of Sandymount be happy with that? The EPA has questions to answer if this half-baked project goes ahead.

I imagine the Government will have to sign off on it before the alteration gets the go-ahead, but I have a problem with the Government putting this forward as a great example of why Irish Water is best and why centralising the system is best. Many people have asked the question. I heard a Government Deputy in the House today saying that those of us on this side of the House only knock things. He asked what we should do if we do not proceed with Irish Water. I have already said that I believe water should be paid for through a central taxation system. Naturally, I am in favour of taxation. However, it should be a fair system based on ability to pay. It is a question of how we manage the system in Ireland. I am very much in favour of regionalising the system. I imagine many people are aware that there are 34 local authorities. Seven local authorities had come together in the Dublin area to deal with water, including the four Dublin local authorities and those from Kildare, Meath and Wicklow. They were working in co-operation and it was proceeding well. The only thing they were short of was investment money from central government. It is possible for regions to co-operate and make the system work better. The system could have been regionalised and the expertise that existed in local authorities could have been used.

The Government maintains that we do not have a good system. The water is hardly drinkable. There is raw sewage going into our sea and rivers. That is true, but there is a reason for it. It is because we refused to give the money to local government to invest in the system. They could not invest in it without money. There is no point in shooting them given that they are not allowed to raise funds for this type of project. They were dependent on central government for the money but were not getting it.

I wrote to Irish Water approximately five weeks ago asking when projects associated with 13 villages in Wexford where raw sewage is going into the sea or the nearest river were going to start. They were due to start long before now but they had been shelved, postponed and delayed. I asked Irish Water for a date and when it planned to start on these projects. Irish Water has taken on a good deal of people to deal with queries. Members of the Oireachtas were given a hotline number for Irish Water. The hot response did not come until this morning. Perhaps, at least, this means those responsible were watching the Dáil Chamber and they knew I was going to give out about not getting a response again. Anyway, I got a response this morning, but there is no information in it. Apparently Irish Water is reviewing the matter. The person responsible finished the letter by expressing the hope that the letter answered my query. That was a little rich given that it did not answer my query. The residents of all the villages in Wexford are eager to have treatment plant put in place, but the projects are stalled and not proceeding at the moment.

I am running out of time, unfortunately, but I have not got past page 1 of the 14-page speech given by the Minister, Deputy Kelly. I heard Deputy Fergus O'Dowd speak on the issue of the plebiscite yesterday evening. I agree with him that it would certainly copperfasten the position. We can talk about it having to go through the Oireachtas, but that means nothing because the Government of the day has a majority in the House anyway. The House will simply rubber-stamp anything that goes on. Deputy Fergus O'Dowd made the point yesterday that to copperfasten the idea of water services in Ireland being forever kept as a public service and to ensure a prohibition on privatisation, we would do well to have a referendum.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd has made the point that there are a number of referendums coming up and that it would not be a major task for the Government to throw this one in, if it genuinely believes it never wants to have it privatised. We know only too well from the Lisbon and Nice treaty referendums that the facility to enable the private sector to get its hands on public services is very strong. European legislation is in place which benefits the private sector and makes it very difficult for governments to oppose its interests. On these grounds alone, it is very important that we have a referendum on the issue. I do not want to have a referendum to enshrine the view that Irish Water should never be privatised. I never want water services to be privatised because Irish Water should be abandoned. The Taoiseach has to make a very difficult decision to make. He is in a catch-22 and is damned if he does and damned if he does not. His best option is to cast Irish Water into a dustbin.

See this speech in context