Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

81. To ask the Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government if Ireland has a derogation from water charges under Article 9(4) of the EU water framework directive; and if the European Union has made representations to change it. [45939/14]

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Barry Cowen referred to the unfortunate death of John Corrie on the streets of Dublin two days ago. I join him in extending my sympathy to Mr. Corrie's family and friends.

A new house building programme has been announced. While everyone welcomes the provision of new housing, the problem is in the here and now. Temperatures fell below 0° Celsius during the night and will remain very low for the rest of the week. I see empty buildings all over the place. With good will, some of them could be used to house the homeless. In this regard, I welcome the initiative taken today by the Archbishop of Dublin. I ask the Minister to do everything in his power to address the problem.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy must address the question.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister to clarify the position on the Irish derogation from the water framework directive of 2000 which has been discussed again recently.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I should have indicated previously that subsequent questions dealt with social housing and homelessness. I concur with the comments made by Deputies Barry Cowen and Brian Stanley on this issue. They are probably aware of the announcement I made earlier today. We will address the issue in subsequent questions.

Article 9 of the water framework directive of 2000 requires member states to take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services in accordance with the well known principle that the polluter pays. Article 9(4) of the directive states member states are not in breach of the directive if they decide, in accordance with established practices, not to apply the provisions of the recovery of costs for a given water use activity where this does not compromise the purposes and achievement of the objectives of the directive. However, Ireland does not have any specific derogation from the directive. I emphasise this point as I have read analysis and commentary to the contrary.

The Government's policy on water charges is fully consistent with the objectives of the water framework directive and reflects the commitment entered into as part of the Programme of Financial Support for Ireland, 2010 to 2013, agreed between the previous Fianna Fáil-led Government and the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The programme for Government commits to introducing a fair funding model to deliver clean and reliable water and establishing a new State owned utility to take responsibility for water infrastructure. The new, more sustainable funding model being put in place through the establishment of Irish Water will allow for the investment required to ensure our water infrastructure can meet demographic and economic needs and comply with the requirements of the water framework directive in respect of the water environment.

In line with Government policy and the provisions of the Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013, Irish Water can collect charges from its customers in receipt of water services provided by it. The package of measures I announced in the House on 19 November provides clarity and certainty and will ensure water charges are affordable for customers. Legislation will be introduced in the House later this week to underpin this package of measures.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The issue of a derogation from the water framework directive is being discussed and Article 9(4) is receiving specific attention. It is interesting to note the Minister's comment that Ireland does not have a derogation from the directive. Did we have a derogation at any stage? If so, was the Government notified that it was being removed and the grounds on which it was being removed?

Was its removal part of an arrangement with the troika and the previous Government when it signed the memorandum of understanding?

Article 9(4) offers a way of dealing with things differently, stating:

Member States shall not be in breach of this Directive if they decide in accordance with established practices not to apply the provisions of paragraph 1, second sentence, and for that purpose the relevant provisions of paragraph 2, for a given water-use activity, where this does not compromise the purposes and the achievement of the objectives of this Directive.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This has been bandied about, and there have been different interpretations in previous years. We do not have a derogation. As a consequence of the circumstances of the country, our current situation and that of the past number of years, and the manner in which the agreement with the troika was signed up to by the previous Administration, not only do we not have a derogation, but, as a result of our circumstances, we do not have a derogation because we have committed, as the Deputy is fully aware, to the introduction of the model we have developed.

It is important that we discuss the water framework directive and the necessity for us to be compliant with it. Without investment of the level required, we simply will not be in compliance with it in any way, shape or form. We all know the reasons for that and the situations with which we have to deal across the country. It is for this reason that we have adopted this policy. It has happened out of necessity because, as a country, we had no choice.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister clearly has options, according to Article 9(4). He could have chosen a policy of conservation and shown he is achieving the objectives of the directive. That could be done through building regulations, water harvesting, particularly in larger buildings, or the roll-out of a large-scale water education and awareness programme.

The Minister will recall that about 15 years ago it was in vogue in this country to say that Irish people would not recycle. We now have one of the best recycling rates in the EU, which is good, and we should have more of it. We cannot do too much. Irish people will conserve water. It is an option.

The €800 million or so that has been spent has not been spent on fixing leaks; rather, it has been spent on establishing Irish Water and the cost of metering, which was €539 million. That money would have repaired an awful lot of mains. We could save water and achieve the purpose of the directive.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have heard these arguments. We do not have options of the scale to which he referred. However, that is not to say we should not be implementing some of the measures he mentioned to a larger degree. I agree with him completely about conservation. It is a necessity that we, as a society, adopt a similar approach in our conservation policy to that which pertains to recycling. The Government will take further measures on this in the coming months and years.

The real issue is that the level of investment required across the State to meet the requirements is colossal. Billions of euro will be required over the next number of years to begin dealing with the problems we have with water infrastructure in the country. It would be impossible to be in compliance with the directive if we did not adopt our current approach.. Look what is happening in Arklow, where a case is being taken due to the fact that there is raw sewage running into the Avoca river.