Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour) | Oireachtas source

-----unfortunately, it is being presented to us by the other party to the agreement as if it were this wonderful, brave legislation, which of course it is not at all.

Regarding the first of the two recommendations of the committee, I did not vote for it but I fully support the first recommendation, as everyone does, which concerns public ownership and committing to a referendum in that regard. I know this was not going to be in this legislation, but the timing of eight referendums was announced after the Cabinet meeting this week and none of them was a referendum on the retention of the water network in public ownership. I would have thought we at least need that as the backdrop to whatever legislation we are dealing with because it was something on which we all agreed and was the very first recommendation. It is needed in order to assure the public that the water network will not be privatised, even though legislation was introduced that would in some ways copper-fasten it in so far as it was provided that if there were any suggestion of privatisation, the proposal would have to go to the people. Having said that, we support the recommendation, but I do not understand why we do not have a date for a referendum on public ownership of the water network.

The second issue that was addressed by the committee was funding and security of funding. It was clearly stated that this would be needed in order to satisfy our obligations under the Water Framework Directive and our other EU obligations. The recommendation was to introduce a long-term multi-annual budgetary cycle that "must be clearly identifiable within existing taxation to meet the cost of domestic water services for the water utility in order to comply with Ireland's EU obligations". However, the Bill, specifically on page 17, in sections 19 and 20, refers to an obligation on Irish Water to prepare a strategic funding plan and submit it to the Minister. Further on, in section 20, the Bill states: "Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Minister may, subject to such conditions as he or she sees fit in each financial year, make grants to Irish Water to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas towards the expenditure incurred by Irish Water in the provision of water services to a dwelling." Essentially, that is the usual round of Estimates whereby water services will have to compete with other public spending. I do not see any ring-fencing of the money or any security into the future that would satisfy either those committee members who wanted that security or the European Union. Therefore, I do not think the Bill satisfies the first or second recommendations, or indeed others.

One of the other recommendations concerns conservation, which has been referred to by previous speakers. There was a very strong commitment to conservation measures in the committee - we spent quite a long time debating it - and I cannot see anything much in the way of incentives in this regard in the Bill, even though the Minister in his concluding remarks said: "The Bill provides for retention of the incentive among households to conserve water and will help Ireland to meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive and other water directives." There is very little about conservation in the Bill. These are some of the direct recommendations of the committee. There are passing references to the river basin management plan, EU rules and the Water Framework Directive but there is nothing to suggest how all of these will be complied with, apart from putting most of the onus on the Commission for Energy Regulation to ensure that happens. That is all I can see in the Bill, and I am concerned it will not satisfy the requirements of the European Union.

Another issue, one that has been raised by Deputy Ó Broin, is the charges applied to those who exceed the average rate multiplied by 1.7. Of course, Deputy Ó Broin is right about this. It is a win for Fine Gael. Fianna Fáil clearly argued for the individual multiplier rather than the household multiplier. The other issue is that it does not at all address how the 48% of the population who do not have meters can be measured accurately and charged for use above the threshold. I suspect that people who have meters and get charged might well have a case to make that they are being unduly punished when those who do not have meters and cannot be as accurately assessed may well escape any kind of penalty or charge. Again, a big play was made by Fianna Fáil in the committee of the 2007 Act and the importance of using it, and terms, fines, levies and charges were bandied about. Clearly, the Fine Gael side of the House wanted charges and that is what it is getting. I wish to be quite clear that we support charging people who use water excessively, with the exemptions regarding issues of health, family size and so on being taken into account.

See this speech in context