Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This legislation, which is quite considerable, is also quite noteworthy for some of the gaps contained in it, but I will return to this. I want to pick up briefly on a comment made by Deputy John McGuinness regarding local government. While in principle I have no objection to a single utility, it is fair to say some local authorities get undue criticism for their management of water services over many years. I happened to be in Cork City Council recently for a briefing and I asked where the water cooler was to get myself a drink. I was told there are none in City Hall because the local authority was always very confident in the quality of its own water and it felt its own staff and management should drink water from the tap. It was always my experience that the quality of water in Cork city was of a very high standard. This was not the case with all local authorities, but a regular point made by representatives of this and the previous Government is that local authorities were somewhat in dereliction of their duties. Like anything, when there is such a multiplicity of them there is variation in standards, but many discharged their duties perfectly well.

It is the case on a national basis, in particular in areas that saw rapid development, in some of the commuter belt areas in particular but also in other areas, that there was underinvestment in our water infrastructure. This is the reason that has been given or posited by the Government for the introduction of water charges. I do not agree with this principle, and I have my doubts about this motivation. In reality, if the Government wanted to ensure there was additional investment in water infrastructure it could have easily done so with additional capital infrastructure. The amount that local authorities spend on roads and housing in any given year is dependent on the national grants, and it would have been perfectly possible for the then Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, and now the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, simply to provide additional funding and, if it so wished, to constrain it to investment in water infrastructure. There was no need for the considerable expense and cost of the metering project. There was certainly no need for water charges, the response to them and the considerable public anger.

I certainly got a very strong sense of the anger in my local community in Cork. It was one of the first places to protest against the installation of water meters. It is my belief that it proved to be the issue that tipped people over the edge, because they could nearly see austerity out their front door, as opposed to some of the other charges and cutbacks. When the contractors came into their estates they could actually see what was going to happen, and they could trace down the line what it would mean for them and the money in their pockets. This had a real impact on people's psychology.

The principle of water, which is such a ubiquitous and essential thing and something that is core to our everyday lives, is a large part of the reason there was such a response. We have seen probably one of the biggest political movements since the establishment of the State, in terms of the number and the scale of the marches. It was also quite notable for the fact that, and I say this with no sense of ego, it was not inspired or pushed by any political party. While supported by political parties, it was ultimately an organic movement from communities supported by trade unions and political parties, and it was one of the most organic political movements that has developed in the country for many years.

Returning to the point, it is absolutely my belief there was no need to introduce water charges to ensure investment in our water infrastructure. Around the same time that Conor Murphy ensured there would be no water charges in the North, there was also a very substantial package, one of the largest packages the Executive has overseen, invested in water infrastructure in the North. This would have been perfectly within the gift of the Government. It was clear that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael wanted to introduce water charges. Both of them made commitments to that effect. There were manifesto commitments in 2011 on the part of Fine Gael, and by Fianna Fáil in the memorandum of understanding with the troika. There was a clear desire to do this. I do not believe it was seen with a view to conserving water, but as an additional source of revenue, and this is the reason they embarked upon this policy. They did not want to spend the money required and consequently designed a very complex off-balance sheet funding model, which led to the absolute mess and extremely arcane and Byzantine structure involved in Irish Water, and all the waste involved in that and all the controversy related to it. When they set about this funding model it required water charges and consequently required meters. As I have said, I do not believe any of this was to do with reducing waste of water, it was to avoid direct State investment.

We are opposed to this. We are opposed to water being commodified. We are particularly concerned about the potential for financialisation and privatisation. Minister after Minister, during the course of this debate and others, have said they have no intention of privatising our water supply and I believe them. I believe this is very likely the case and very likely the intention. In many other countries I am sure that was the intention where metering was introduced. It is often 15 or 20 years down the road before such a thing happens, but in country after country, and where it has devolved to local authorities in local authority after local authority, this has happened. Water systems are expensive to run. For cash-strapped local authorities and Governments where there is a charging structure and metering, the temptation will exist in times of difficulty, because it is a source of considerable finance that can be realised quite quickly.

Arguments can made that it can be kept within certain constraints, but inevitably it has happened in country after country. We have seen it in England in local authority after local authority, in France for a very lengthy period of time, throughout South America where water is considerably more scarce, and in other parts of Europe also. It is my view that water will become more and more profitable and more and more of a commodity throughout the world over the coming years, and will more and more become a target for business. If we have something that is there ready to be privatised, with a model that is capable of being financialised, the temptation will exist. This is one of the primary reasons we oppose this, as well as our belief that water is a fundamental right and something that should be provided as of need and right, and can be provided as of need and right.

I have already alluded to the movement developed to fight water charges, and it really was quite an historic moment. It has adjusted Government policy on this particular issue more than any movement has, although perhaps it could be argued there is a movement at present on the eighth amendment, which is equally beginning to shift public opinion and shift the ground.

It certainly adjusted the establishment's analysis, however. There was a great deal of hostile commentary from the establishment media but it has also moved both Fianna Fáil and the Government considerably on this issue. It has moved us onto the ground we are on and while this ground is not where we want to be, it is certainly far removed from where this debate began. We are in a position in which the metering programme is effectively halted and there is a commitment to enshrine public ownership of water in the Constitution. I will return to the latter point.

Having come under pressure, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael decided this issue should be dealt with by an expert group and a special Oireachtas committee. There was much toing and froing on that and there was a great deal of back and forth between some of the Deputies, particularly those from Fianna Fáil. At one stage, it looked as if legislation of this kind would not be possible, or certainly would not be recommended. At the last moment, yet again, Fianna Fáil did an about-turn on its position on water. Consequently, we are in our current position.

This is complex and quite detailed legislation, which amounts to over 40 pages. The point has been made by a number of my colleagues that the time for scrutiny is somewhat insufficient. I believe there are a number of amendments forthcoming.

There is nothing in this legislation on the referendum. I do not believe there is a date for it as yet. It was one of the clearest demands of the movement and one of the clearest recommendations of the committee. It is a position held by parties opposed to water charges and also by parties in favour, such as the Green Party. Therefore, I see no reason such a referendum could not be scheduled and why progress could not be made in that regard.

Some of the previous speakers stated the group water schemes will be dealt with at a later date. Again, there is nothing about equity for group water schemes in this legislation. There is also nothing about building regulations or education. Much of the research our party has done on our position is that there is considerable scope for reducing water wastage through public education programmes. As with a number of other policy areas, such programmes can deliver considerable behavioural changes.

The gaps I referred to concern the detail on the threshold and allowance amounts. Considerable latitude is being allowed to the Minister in this regard. Allowing the legislation to proceed in this manner is a particular concern for us and a criticism we have of the Fianna Fáil position. We are opposed to this proposal as it stands. While the threshold amount and the allowance set by the Minister might be modest to begin with, there is always the potential for them to be adjusted. It is likely. My understanding is that the Minister can reduce the multiplier after five years but not increase it.

If this trend continues, one is in the territory of asking whether the charge is a fine for excess use. The point was already made about the households without meters and how the calculation would be made in regard to them. There is considerable uncertainty in this respect. One is debating whether there is a fine or a charge through the back door. As we have said in this debate and previous ones, we believe this is a case of water charges through the back door. The infrastructure is being left in place.

Making reference to wastage and education, I made the point that much of the leakage is through the mains system and our creaking public water system, as we have said on record numerous times. Domestic users are not the big offenders. We are leaving the infrastructure in place for charging and excess-related charging. The path forward for what we are concerned about is clear. Excess charges can increase. The threshold can be adjusted, as can the allowance, and then one effectively has charges in all but name, in the same manner as registration fees were used to introduce quite considerable third level fees through the back door.

There is a considerable lack of detail on the medical exemption. That is to be set by the Minister. I am anxious to ensure that it is generous and considerable and takes into account a wide range of medical circumstances.

We are very disappointed with this legislation and the approach taken by Fianna Fáil, in particular, at the committee and subsequent to it. I am disappointed we are in this position where there is the potential for water charges to be introduced at a considerable level through the back door.

See this speech in context