Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It is obvious that when he intervenes, he knows he is losing. Irish Water is a water and sewerage facility. Is that correct, Minister? The amendment creates a facility every year to transfer up to €540 million from the local government fund to Irish Water.

The Deputies rightly say this particular utility will not pay for itself and that it needs an Exchequer subsidy of €540 million, plus another €130 million, as well as the no rates subsidy. As has been pointed out time and again, the net income that will be earned from water charges will be very small.

This is the rub: amendment No. 3, tabled by Deputies Paul Murphy and Catherine Murphy, would, in practice, be put into force over a small number of years. When that happened and the Government decided that the amount of the transfer was €1 or less - perhaps nothing - Irish Water would tell us that, as a result, water and sewage treatment charges would have to increase by €540 million. There would be a temptation and advice from public servants. The Minister would be told he would be able to square his Department's budget for the year by reducing the payment to Irish Water and that it would be painless. When Irish Water, as part of a chain reaction, would then put up water charges and a question was asked about it in the House, the Minister would say it was a commercial decision for Irish Water. That is what is going on.

The Government's amendment is written in such a way that there is no commitment to transfer €540 million in the future. As I have said, it is perfectly set up to reduce that sum over time until it reaches zero. At that stage it will have to be made up in water and sewage treatment charges. It is for that reason that I have to say amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 20, tabled by Deputy Paul Murphy, is ultimately reasonable. What he is saying is that the Government should not be able to do this in the dark of the night. He is saying any decision on the amount of money involved should have to be brought before the two Houses of the Oireachtas to be debated and the Government would have to own up to what it was doing and the knock-on effect of reducing the sum of €540 million. In a very unfair and opaque way, it is trying to create a situation in which it can wean away the grant and allow water and sewage treatment charges go up. I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, will clarify whether my reading of what is legally possible, based on the Minister's amendment, is correct.

I take issue with Deputy Brian Stanley and what he said about paying water conservation grants to people who have wells and septic tanks. There is as much, if not more, cost associated with maintaining a septic tank and a well as there is with being part of the public system which up until now was free. As someone who now has access to the public supply but who had a well for many years, I can state absolutely that even with the charge to be applied, it will be much cheaper than it was to maintain the well, replace washing machines, dishwashers and all other equipment in the house because of particle matter in the water from the well. Wells are variable and difficult to maintain. One of the interesting divisions in society concerns those who had wells for many years and then received a public water supply. Most of them would say they would pay an annual fee for a public water supply because of the ability to simply turn on the tap and be sure of getting quality water from it.

There is much talk about having paid for the water and sewage treatment services through general taxation. We did and we did not. We did when there was a Government surplus; we did not when there was a Government deficit. It is a very simple mathematical equation. When the Government was running a big surplus during the noughties, not only did we pay for everything through taxation, we also had money to put away in the bank. Once the Exchequer went into deficit, taxes were not paying for all of the services provided. It is debatable whether they were paying for social welfare, education, water or health service, but the simple fact is that, at one stage, what we were paying in taxes did not pay for €20 billion worth of services being provided. One thing was certain. When the money was coming from general taxation, those who provided their own water and sewerage systems were paying the same in taxation as everyone else, but they were not getting the same services from the State. Let us remember that 550,000 house owners - somewhere between one quarter and one third of all houses in the State - provide and maintain their own wastewater systems. There is, therefore, a certain equity in what is happening because at least a person will not be billed for a service he or she is not receiving. Unlike Deputy Brian Stanley, I think it is right that if a sum of €100 is to be given to those with publicly supplied water and sewerage services, it is perfectly logical and fair that the same sum be given to those who provide these services for themselves. Anything else would perpetuate an inequity that has lasted way too long.

I have said this before about the Water Services Bill. It will not happen in the short term, but when it does happen and the same standards are applied to built septic tanks on inspection as are applied to new septic tanks or wastewater systems as they are more properly called, it will cost up to €20,000 to remediate them to the proper standard. If one checks the memorandum circulated by the Minister of State's Department, it specifically states that it could cost up to €14,000. It was not me who said this but the Minister of State's Department. I am sure the Deputies in the House from rural areas will confirm that people ring us in our offices to say they have a totally deficient wastewater system and that they are polluting the ground around them. They want to upgrade their systems because they do not like to pollute. They want to receive the very small grant provided to upgrade their wastewater systems because they are not in compliance with the law.

What are they told? They are told they cannot get the grant unless an inspector actually picks their house. Now we have a great situation - only this Government could do it - where someone is breaking the law although they wishes to comply with it. The person has no wish to pollute but believes that, like the person who is inspected, he should get the grant too. He is told he cannot get the grant because the inspector has not found out he is breaking the law, even though the person is telling the inspector he is breaking the law. Does the Government know how much that grant is costing it? For 550,000 wastewater systems, it costs the Government €99,000. I hear talk about private wastewater systems polluting. It is the best bargain the State ever got. How many millions and billions do we spend on public wastewater systems?

The Government could not even say to the people of rural Ireland that if they come forward indicating they have a non-functioning wastewater system, it will give them a grant to upgrade it to a suitable standard. Is that equity or fairness? Is that good environmental policy? Is that ensuring we keep the pristine environment in which many of us have the great advantage of living? Is that protecting our rivers and lakes in some of the most high nature value areas of the country?

I will be opposing this section and I will be supporting amendment No. 2 from Deputy Paul Murphy which relates to openness and transparency. I hope the Minister of State will answer the questions I have put to him and that he will explain to us exactly the financial arrangements the Government is putting in place. I hope the Minister of State will either confirm or deny whether I am correct in saying this is designed in such a way that the Government can reduce the subsidy, increase the water and sewerage charges and then claim it was all done by Irish Water.

See this speech in context