Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Thankfully, after today I will. This legislation is a result of the process we, with Fine Gael, put in place. In the first instance, a committee of experts sought to make recommendations on how water services would be funded in the future. That in turn fed into an all-party committee, of which Deputy Jan O'Sullivan and others were part, and this committee in turn made recommendations by majority decision to the Dáil. The Dáil itself then instructed Government to bring forward legislation to reflect those recommendations. As I said on numerous occasions during the past number of weeks, I feel this does that.

I am sure the majority of the Dáil will agree with that and, ultimately, the people will accept the decision of the Dáil. It will have been seen that we have given some weight to the votes in our favour to deal with this, as well as many other issues, that the public asked us to do during the course of the last election, for which we formed an alliance, namely, the confidence and supply arrangement. That process is in train and we are very glad to be part of it. We will hold the Government to account, scrutinising and analysing every effort it makes to address those issues. If it fails to do so, we will not support budgets which do not address that in the future.

On the issue of public ownership, the committee, of which Deputy Jan O'Sullivan was a member, noted:

The Committee notes that, while existing legislation already provides a statutory prohibition on the privatisation of Irish Water, the Thirty-Fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public Ownership (No 2) Bill 2016, which proposes that the following subsection be inserted after subsection 2 of Article 28.4 of the Constitution:"3° The Government shall be collectively responsible for the protection, management and maintenance of the public water system. The Government shall ensure in the public interest that this resource remains in public ownership and management."

We went a step further, in so far as Deputy Joan Collins's Bill got the approval of the House and was moved to the committee to further the process from which a referendum would ultimately emanate. We remain committed to that. We signed petitions and gave various commitments to members of the public, including the ones referred to by Deputy Joan Collins. We will continue to honour that commitment and ensure the Government maintains it too.

The funding model, whereby water services will be funded by general taxation, as recommended by the committee of experts, was reaffirmed by the committee. On public engagement and transparency, the previous Government made no effort to have the entity accountable to this House. That is now addressed by virtue of a public water forum. We will see the sort of accountability and transparency, under various headings for which it has responsibility, brought to bear on it by the House and for it, and ultimately the people, to pass judgment on it. We also have the Department's Vote which will require committee approval, as is the case with all Departments.

I commend Deputy Catherine Murphy for her amendment, which, as I said last night, is the only one that made any sense. It was the only one to copper-fasten the responsibility for the public funds given to Irish Water with the Comptroller and Auditor General. I withheld my support for that amendment because the Government, as affirmed by the Minister to the Dáil yesterday, has given a strong commitment to prioritise legislation to amend the Comptroller and Auditor General Act in this regard.

On compliance with EU law, the framework put in place promotes conservation. There are other recommendations on various forms of water conservation, as other Members well know but do not like to repeat, despite the good work they were engaged in to ensure consensus on them. We will hold the Government to account for implementing them over the coming year.

Sinn Féin put down silly amendments. Its first one personified that when it spoke about renaming the legislation the water charges by the back door Bill. Why did it not continue with "Water charges or fines by the back door for the 4% of the population who, after every effort and conciliation is made and assistance given to them to ensure compliance and conservation, still want to wantonly waste water and leave their taps on"? Will Sinn Féin incite people to bring this to a head and bring it to the floor of the House again? There is an 18-month period before which time an allowance is calculated. That allowance will be for every house up to eight persons. If there are nine persons, they can prove it and be allowed for it. There are allowances for people with medical difficulties which are cast in stone. If Sinn Féin wanted to change the name of the Bill, it should have gone further with a Title like "water charges or fines by the back door for those, who despite every help and assistance given to them in this Bill, still want to leave their taps on and expect to get away with it".

The recommendation on equity and fairness, as had been provided for in the confidence and supply arrangement initially, was that those who had paid would be treated no less favourably than those who had not. We were all laughed at when it was divulged how that might emerge or could be squared. If one was to go after those who had not paid, it would cost much more than paying back those who paid. It was fair and appropriate, meeting with everybody's approval, despite the fact they felt it might never happen. It is in the process of happening. A campaign has been initiated already to ensure people get those refunds as quickly as possible, despite the protestations of others in the hope they might act as a Christmas Grinch to detract from a feel-good factor for some households which might require or be glad of it. If others want to donate to charities or to the homeless, as was suggested by a campaign initiated last week, so be it. That is people's choice. I know some Members who initially paid the first water bill but then changed their minds and decided not to pay the others. At least they will get something back and they can see what to do with it then.

There is also provision within the equity and fairness section to bring about and to measure parity for those on the public supply and those on rural and group water schemes. Unfortunately, during the course of the deliberations of the expert committee and the Oireachtas committee, no information emanated which could properly calculate and compare the two. Much capital assistance is given, for example, in the setting up of many of these group schemes. Despite the fact somebody might be paying €200 a year towards the provision of a service from a group scheme, were it not for the capital subvention and funds provided by the Government, they might be paying a lot more. That needs to be measured to ensure we achieve the parity one would expect for the State to have relating to those who get a water supply, irrespective from where it comes. That is an issue for which I and others should hold the Government and Department to account, along with those who represent those bodies, to ensure that figure is forthcoming, that measurement can take place and to insist, thereafter, that there is the sort of parity one would expect. The whole area of metering was brought to a conclusion, as was recommended. It remains the fact, save for new homes in the future.

The bottom line is this saga is coming to a conclusion. I am glad of that, as well as the fact I could play a role, together with my party colleagues, in ensuring some value is given to the votes cast in our favour on this issue. We did not get all we had sought because we accept in the art of negotiation there has to be compromise. We have given a lot of value to that vote. I do not believe this matter would have progressed in the way it has if we did not take that course of action. Others simply sought to use this as a battering ram to ensure no Government could function after the day it was formed. In my and my party's opinion, that would have created the kind of instability that we witnessed previously that was of no good to the country or the economy, despite the history that others have in ensuring that sort of instability, in some way, helps them with their political ideology and advancement. It does not work in my book. As a pragmatist of the centre, it is important we find solutions and move on. There are more pressing issues with which the Government and the House should be dealing. I commend the Bill and its recommendations. I hope and expect the Seanad to deal with this expediently in order to put this issue to bed for once and for all and for people to get the refunds to which they are entitled.

See this speech in context