Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The outgoing Government’s policy was to allow Irish Water massive commercial freedom even though it would be funded primarily by direct State subvention and it would take many years to bring services to the level the company itself defines as acceptable. Irish Water is very far from being the accepted model of water service provision and development internationally. Northern Ireland and Scotland are very much the exceptions in Europe. Comparable countries to Ireland manage to deliver major water infrastructure developments without a commercial utility like Irish Water as it is now constituted.

A service delivered with ongoing public investment should most properly be delivered by State agencies. Had Irish Water been a State agency from the outset, the uncontrolled expansion of management, the bonus culture, the waste, the secrecy, the €0.33 million spend on polling, the massive and rising payments for lobbying and many other practices would not have been possible. Equally, the disdain for democratic accountability would never have been allowed.

The consistent claim for Irish Water was that this was the only way of raising the funding required for investment, and this is simply false. In fact, the commercial State firm has reduced potential funding for investment. Not only has Irish Water's investment programme failed to be taken out of government borrowing figures, there is no plan on the table from anyone which shows how this could happen. Commentators who state that we are facing a choice between off-balance sheet borrowing and public funding need to look at the facts. There are no proposals from anyone which show how Irish Water could potentially ever meet the arms-length borrowing test of EUROSTAT. Let us hear no more of the nonsense that water services will be deprived of funding unless current policy continues. That is a key point. If one looks at the financial framework of the Fine Gael party or any party over the next five years, they envisage Irish Water funding on-balance sheet, not off-balance. That is something that has been confirmed to us in more recent times. The entire case for Irish Water and the investment figures published have been based on putting spin first. Far more time and money has been spent on co-opting the support of commentators than on ensuring the policy stands up to scrutiny.

In the context of the speeches of Deputy Coveney and others, we must make the general point as well that in the decade prior to the establishment of Irish Water, from 2000 to 2010, €5.5 billion was invested in water services and more money was spent per annum on water infrastructure in the three years prior to the establishment of Irish Water than in the years since. One should not get me wrong as there are significant challenges and considerable needs for investment but it never was simply the idea, which Irish Water fostered, that nothing was done, everything was in a medieval state for decades and hey presto!, in a magical moment, one created a new body and everything changed wonderfully. Members talk about sewage outflows, etc. One of the biggest sewage treatment projects ever was carried out 20 years ago by the two local authorities in Cork - I refer to the main drainage system going out to the wastewater treatment plant in Little Island. Many mythologies grew up about investment too and we need to be realistic about all of that and stop trying to sell the idea that everything was a disaster beforehand and everything will be fantastic afterwards. As we all know, that is not the way life works.

Conservation and quality are core objectives for water policy, and this is where the funding and the priority should have been rather than on constructing a metering and charging regime which is profoundly wasteful. There should have been a cost-benefit analysis before €500 million was poured into the ground. By Irish Water's own estimation, the fixing of elements of the supply system is the single most important element of conservation and quality improvement.

On the matter of charges specifically, we believe there is no basis for asking the Irish people to pay a regressive direct charge which is, at present, marginal to achieving conservation and quality objectives. At present, Irish Water's net revenue is something below €50 million, if one takes account of the water conservation grant of €100 million and the 61% compliance. There is no significant current revenue coming in at all under the existing model.

Unlike others, our position is that one does not get to pick and choose what lawful payments one makes. What is lawfully owed should be paid. It is up to us, as democrats, to use legitimate democratic means to change policies. This is exactly what I have said repeatedly when questioned on this topic, before, during and after the election.

On the issue of a constitutional referendum on public ownership, we are fully supportive of a stand against privatisation. There is, however, a need for all advocating such a referendum to explain how it would work, for example, how would it be proposed to give constitutional status to a service which is not universal and about water services not provided directly by State agencies. We have had enough of water policy being made up on the hoof by the outgoing Government that we do not need to spend years on something which is all about soundbites over substance. Clearly, detailed work would be required in exploring such an option. In the meantime, moving Irish Water on to a pathway to effectively become a State agency is the most effective and pragmatic way of copper-fastening the public ownership issue.

Nobody here has been given a mandate to dictate policy or to tell others what their mandate represents. We have heard too much of that in recent weeks. The legitimate place for the future of water policy to be settled is here in Dáil Éireann. The talks that we are engaged in which are not yet concluded provide effectively for that. We are not denying anybody any inputs. The fundamental point is that the future of water policy will be decided, not by the policies of the previous Dáil but the inputs of this Dáil and all parties, through an Oireachtas committee that is proposed to be formed subsequent to a commission's recommendations. That means, effectively, that water charges, only after they are suspended by legislation, can ever only come back by the will of the Dáil, and given that a majority of the Dáil have been elected on a position that they are opposed to water charges, there are fairly clear implications from all of that.

What we have been trying to do is to deal with this decisively in advance of the formation of a minority government so that it, in the public interest - the public wants a government formed - has some chance of dealing with the major issues of this country without it being consistently undermined by an issue that would not be resolved in advance of its formation. We are an opposition party that will facilitate the formation of that government but we want to ensure it has some chance of sustainability in the future.

Let us first do what should have been done five years ago, that is, have an independent report on key elements of water policy. Let us then debate it. Those who believe that the current model of provision and funding is the only possible way can make their case and let them seek to persuade others and the Irish people. We welcome the fact Fine Gael acknowledges the new reality and may agree a suspension of charges. It would be free to argue and vote for the recommencement of charges after the suspension and, equally, we and others would be free to argue and vote for the non-imposition of charges during this Dáil term.

I would encourage other Deputies to put aside their fake outrage and distorting spin for the rest of this debate. The policy we are committed to remains a scrapping of the commercial State firm, no charges for at least the duration of this Dáil and a major national investment programme in developing this public service.

See this speech in context