Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

It is probably a bit surreal that we are still in this Chamber speaking about the same matter, as it seems to arise every single year. It was in 2012 or 2013 that it began.

On occasions, because the Government had such a big majority, it essentially rammed through legislation. I remember one particular occasion, just before the Christmas recess, when the entire Opposition walked out to try to highlight the inadequacy of the legislation, but the Government was so arrogant that it would not take the message at the time. It could do whatever it wanted to because of the scale of its majority. It was fundamentally flawed legislation, which has been demonstrated over time. Many members of that Government still sit in this House, but there is now a minority Government, which means that legitimate concerns have a better chance of being heard. The arrogance displayed at that time has ensured that the last three or four years have been fraught with tension surrounding Irish Water. It is no exaggeration to say this was a doomed enterprise from the get-go. I hope lessons have been learned from that time.

While it is welcome that the enormous public outcry and determined and sustained complaining have culminated in the abolition of the water charges, I still have huge concerns about the costs involved, including the contractual obligations which may supersede best spending practice or decisions. One example is the metering programme. If we look at the leakage rates around the country prior to the introduction of Irish Water, County Kildare had one of the lowest, if not the lowest, n the country at the time. It was the first county selected for metering. It did not make sense to say metering was about conservation. As the methodology used for calculating it has changed since Irish Water was established, it is not easy to carry out a like for like comparison.

The lifespan of meters is between 15 and 20 years, yet we are continuing to install them on the basis of contracts that were agreed rather than on the basis of what makes sense. From the outset of the water charges controversy I have been clear on the need to recognise the importance of conservation, but Irish Water was never about conservation. We saw the leaked PR memos which referred to "turning citizens into customers", but that was firmly rejected. It was about borrowing off balance sheet, money which had to be paid back, and a full cost-recovery model. People understood exactly what that meant; it meant additional taxes on top of the cuts they were seeing in their incomes. It was a very real political issue.

That every house requires a meter to guarantee conservation is not true. The very fact that County Kildare had such a good system prior to metering speaks to this. It had achieved a figure 7% below what the 20-year objective was for Irish Water before any meter was installed. That was because there was a very good telemetry section in the county council. There is much criticism of the county councils. However, I had reason to ring a county council last week. A constituent had contacted me to try to find out when a large burst pipe was likely to be fixed. I rang Irish Water and obtained some information, but then I rang the county council and got much more. That the county councils and the 34 local authorities were going to disappear and that a big entity would be placed on top has turned out not to be the case because the county councils were to be contracted to do the work. It is self-evident that the pipes are where they are.

The Scottish Water officials who presented to the Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water said the same about the roll-out and the huge cost of the metering programme, which will be replaced in 20 years' time. That has to be questioned. Is this a prudent way to spend money? There is no doubt that a very significant investment is required to repair some pipes which were laid in Victorian times. A community-type metering programme, rather than individual meters, might well be a more prudent way to spend money. It seems that we are going to pay to buy and install more meters. Then we will pay to maintain more and to read them. We will also pay somebody for the administration of the billing system and we will have to have a helpline in case there are disputes. It seems that an awful lot of money will be shelled out and it is important that the Government give us some indication of how it has gone about costing this process and where the cost-benefit analysis falls on a different type of programme that would probably result in something very similar.

One of the main concerns people had about Irish Water was related to the awarding of contracts, some to high profile names who have benefited from them. Unfortunately, this legislation does very little to assuage such concerns. A major issue with it is the lack of a specific mention of the now changed entity that is Irish Water and the changed financial reporting structure inherent in this. When it was established, it was proposed that domestic charges would fund it, in addition to charges on businesses and farms. The Bill makes Irish Water a fully funded public entity; thus I have tabled an amendment that would ensure the Comptroller and Auditor General would be given full power to examine it. This year alone €753 million has been earmarked for Irish Water. That is in addition to development contributions, agricultural and commercial water charges. There is a very sizeable amount of money that requires oversight.

My amendment reads as follows:

Recognising that Irish Water is a fully State funded entity, Irish Water shall be required to report, as required, to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and to be amenable to all reporting guidelines, and inspection and audit powers of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, as provided for in the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993.

This issue has come up at the Committee on Public Accounts. When items of correspondence have come before us from Irish Water, it is not at all clear where oversight lies. There is a clear gap because of the way the utility was set up. It was intended to be a semi-State commercial company, but it is no longer a semi-State commercial company and it requires oversight.

I want to reiterate the point about household size. It would be quite an administrative burden to have to obtain all of that information and it would cost money to obtain it. I question whether this is the way to go. Part of the reason people wanted to have it enshrined in the Constitution that Irish Water would not become a utility that would be sold on was there was a lack of trust. This legislation probably reinforces that lack of trust more than anything else. While I am keen not to insert amendments into the Constitution that we do not absolutely require, there will continue to be a concern about this issue until it is put to the people.

The Social Democrats believe oversight is critical. Its omission from the Bill is serious. Given this, I sincerely hope the Government will accept the proposed amendment to the legislation.

See this speech in context