Dáil debates

Tuesday, 28 June 2016

Water Services (Amendment) Bill 2016: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

5:40 pm

Photo of Ruth CoppingerRuth Coppinger (Dublin West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reason I hesitated in beginning my contribution on the Bill is that, according to the new leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Brendan Howlin, during Leaders' Questions this morning, there is a doubt as to whether we can even be discussing this Bill. According to Deputy Howlin, it is potentially unconstitutional because the EU Commission has declared, in its opinion, that Ireland does not have an exemption from water charges and has an established practice of recouping the charge for water. I just wanted to check that it was okay with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government that we proceeded.

It brings out the farcical nature of this Bill and of this whole charade by the Government. If EU law overrides Irish law, as Deputy Howlin is trying to contend, I wonder how seriously the Minister and the Government are going to take the issue of fighting the EU Commission on this. Or, as I suspect may be the case in nine months' time when the commission that is being set up deliberates, is this designed to take the steam out of the anti-water charges campaign and movement and to look for new ways to try to bludgeon the people into submission, using the EU ruling to do so in the process? If that is the case, I warn the Minister that under no circumstances are the people who became very exercised and activated on the issue of water charges going to allow that to happen. The fact that a democratic decision taken by the electorate in February to elect 70% of TDs who made a declaration to oppose and abolish water charges is going to be ignored by the EU Commission says it all about how the EU is behaving lately.

I turn to the Bill itself and to the Minister's speech made on Friday. The first thing for people who are watching this Bill to note is that this Bill keeps and maintains Irish Water intact. Irish Water is currently outside the terms of this Bill. That may be familiar territory to Members in the House, but people outside might be surprised by that. This is effectively the first broken election promise by Fianna Fáil, which had posters across the length and breadth of the country about abolishing Irish Water and which has instead opted to maintain it. We could be discussing a Bill now about abolishing and burying Irish Water but we are not.

The second key issue is that the Bill is silent on water metering. I ask the Minister to agree to amend the Bill and insert a provision to the effect that water metering will be suspended and ended for the duration of the process in this Bill. By anyone's standards, the idea that metering is taking place in housing estates as we speak, when we in here are debating whether to suspend water charges, is ludicrous. If the Minister is serious about listening to people, he should agree to amend that in the next Stage of the Bill. It is a complete and utter waste of money that €500 million is being spent on a metering programme that nobody ever asked for or wanted.

The Government keeps telling us it is serious about conservation. I draw attention to a section of the Minister's speech from Friday and to the legacy of successive parties - Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party, the Green Party and the Progressive Democrats - who were in power for the last number of decades. I quote the Minister's own words: "We are guilty of having underinvested in water infrastructure and services for decades". It goes on about "often financially constrained circumstances". We were not financially constrained in the 1990s or the 2000s. I was on a council, as I sure other Members present were, during the period of the biggest building programme in this country. On Fingal County Council, for example, most of the housing - at least 50% of it - was built during this time. None of the recommendations of councillors from the left or of environmentally-concerned councillors were taken on board by councillors of Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil. There could have been a whole raft of water conservation measures in those new homes. These parties should really stand indicted for their lack of investment.

The other issue in the Minister's speech is an acceptance that there was not enough debate on the previous water services Bill, which is obviously welcome. There was a clear bias in the Minister's speech when he spoke of those who want water services to be funded by the Exchequer and how they must essentially realise that water in that case is "competing with hospitals, schools, roads and other services for budgetary allocations". There is another option. Just for a change, the Government could look at taxing the significant amount of wealth and profit of big business in this country. The Minister and his party consistently say that people on the left who oppose water charges have offered no alternatives. I am about to offer the Minister at least five of them.

The first alternative is to stop opposing the EU Commission on one issue on which I do support it: the idea that Apple, one of the largest companies on the planet, ought to be pursued by the Government for back taxes it owes this country of an estimated €17 billion to €19 billion. That is one suggestion.

If we were to do this, we could fund many water pipes.

My second suggestion concerns a millionaires' tax on income above €1 million. It would allow people a fair degree of spending power. Let us start there. These are just basic ideas to show where there is wealth. If we were to impose a 2% tax on all income above €1 million, we could bring in €2.7 billion. The European Commission has recommended that the Government introduce a financial transactions tax; however, the Government picks and chooses which of the European Commission's recommendations to which it should listens. It could raise €500 million if it introduced a minimal financial transactions tax, or €1 billion if it was to introduce a more moderate one.

How about enforcing the headline corporation tax rate at the effective minimum rate? That would bring in €2 billion this year alone, which would go a long way towards funding the water infrastructure we need. How about a 10% increase in the effective rate of income tax paid by the top 10% of earners? Again, it could bring in €2.7 billion. We could introduce a change in the rate of employers' PRSI towards the EU average. I am not suggesting we go above it. It would raise billions of euro every year. These are just some of the new ways by which we could increase the so-called fiscal space and enlarge the pie significantly in order that we would have money and would not be competing with hospitals, schools and all other services.

There are other sources of finance in the country which are seldom mentioned. The Irish Strategic Investment Fund which others and I have highlighted has €5.4 billion in cash which should be used to build houses for the 140,000 families on housing lists. The National Asset Management Agency has €2.4 billion in cash. Could we use some of it to fund water infrastructure? The Irish banks which were bailed out at huge cost by Irish families have €6.5 billion more on deposit than they have given out in loans. Could we ask them to supply some of it?

Although there are major sources of funds, the Government and Fianna Fáil have their minds fixed on making ordinary workers and families pay water charges, but there are other ways. It is often said the Opposition does not propose alternatives. I have just given approximately six and would love the Minister of State to comment on some of them.

5:50 pm

Photo of Bríd SmithBríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In a matter of a weekend and a day a range of issues have come to the fore that will have surprised and not surprised the Irish public. A very interesting series of attempts to cover up and support each other is happening between the Government and the European Union at the same time as the discussion on Brexit and the question is being asked why ordinary people would vote to leave such a great, kind and democratic institution as the European Union. For us, it circles around the Bill and water charges. It is no surprise that we face another suspension. Fianna Fáil has introduced a great act into the body politic, whereby it will back up the Government, pretend to be in opposition and suspend everything the Government wants to suspend in order to take the heat out of an issue. It did exactly what the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, desired to do regarding bin charges, which was to avoid more demonstrations and more feet on the street. The Minister said in the House that we did not need another movement on the streets against bin charges. The Bill attempts to suspend water charges and kick them into a commission of investigation, not to do what Fianna Fáil promised the people, which was to abolish them.

This has been said many times. The more interesting issue was teased out in the newspapers, the media and the body politic over the weekend, namely, the revelation that the Government was using the European Commission as a fig leaf to allow it to insist on maintaining Irish Water, threaten the public and push through water charges in some form. Marian Harkin, MEP, and Lynn Boylan, MEP, have done a great job in exposing, through a series of questions, how the issue was used as a fig leaf. By following the logic of the questions asked and the answers given, one can see that the Water Framework Directive was introduced by the European Union in 2000 and signed off on by the Irish Government in 2003 to 2004.

The European Commission was asked what it saw as "established practice" in charging for water. It stated it depended on what the Government was doing when it adopted the directive in 2003 and 2004. At the time, our practice was not to charge for water. In the reply to another question submitted by Marian Harkin, MEP, the European Commission took the view that "established practice" referred to the point in 2010 when the Government indicated it would introduce water charges. The European Union is changing its tune. In one response it was said "established practice" referred to what the position was in 2003, while in another it was said it referred to what the position was in 2010. This is entirely to suit the agenda of the Government.

There is a great relationship between the European Union, Fine Gael and the "Endapendents", backed by Fianna Fáil, with the intention of trying to hoodwink and fool the population. It will not work. Suspension or no suspension, what has happened here has been another display of outrageous contempt for the democratic will of the people. All the Government is doing is providing a cover for a corporate agenda, multinationals and regressive charges which put the onus back on ordinary people. As Deputy Ruth Coppinger pointed out, there are many ways to skin a cat; there are many ways to skin the corporate cat which is getting away with murder.

There is a contradiction in Fine Gael's statements. When asked about the European Union's possible attempt to force Ireland to increase its corporation tax rate from 12.5%, Brian Hayes, MEP, emphatically responded that if the European Union was to attempt it, we would pull out. Whether the rest of the party stands over this, it is the statement of the MEP for Dublin on Fine Gael's position on the raising of the corporation tax rate. Increasing the rate of corporation tax is a spectre, but imposing regressive taxation on the least well-off is not. The vast majority of people have shown, by putting their feet on the street, voting, being willing to resist bullying and even going to court and prison that they are determined to ensure further austerity will not be imposed on them in the form of water charges.

There are many other ways to pay for water through progressive, not regressive, taxation. When the Government states it is giving more of the same, we must say it is not fooling the population. You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. If the Government does not show respect for the dead - water charges must be dead - it must be shown how to respect the dead. To that end, the population will have to take to the streets again. The Right2Water movement will meet on Monday with a view to organising further mass demonstrations. This is in response to the nonsense about whether the EU directive applies to water charges, the contradictory nature of the answers we are receiving and the clear attempt by the European Union to bully the Irish people.

One would think the economic bullies of Europe who are trying to force the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership down our throats and privatise everything that moves in the interests of corporate and global multinationals would have learned from what the people of Britain said in response to the question of whether they wanted to remain in or leave the European Union. They have not learned. Instead, they are trying to shove more bullying tactics down the throats of ordinary people, but it will not work. People are wise to them. There will be more people back on the streets and further opposition and it will come back on Fine Gael and those in this House who made false promises to the people and are reneging on them. We must totally reject the contents of the Bill and show that we are prepared to resist bullying by the European Union inside and outside the Chamber.

6:00 pm

Photo of Joan CollinsJoan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to share time with Deputy Connolly.

I questioned what I would say on this Bill because many of us in opposition who support the Right2Water campaign have to question whether we support the legislation because it is a farce. I do not reckon that the EU is working hand in hand with national governments on these issues, yet five days after the vote for Brexit because of the arrogance and the contempt of the 1% in the EU political class, it issued a statement about Ireland that it would be in breach of the Water Framework Directive because water charges are the established practice in the country. That arrogance will come back to bite the Union and the Government parties. When water charges were introduced, I recall a picture of Phil Hogan standing with a smug smile on his face holding a glass of water saying, "You will pay for water." That is imprinted on the minds of everybody opposed to these charges and austerity. They said, "No way, we won't pay." They also said they would not accept them and this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Then Deputy Alan Kelly brought in legislation a year later saying he had listened to the people and water charges would be reduced, but we pointed out that was not what the people were saying. They were saying, "No way, we won't pay." In the general election, the democratic will of the people was to elect more than 90 Members who oppose water charges with a sizeable number of us prepared to vote against the current water charge regime. Fianna Fáil issued a jingoistic response. Party candidates clearly stated during the campaign that they opposed water charges and they would oppose them in the Chamber. They then came up with a half-baked proposal to set up a commission of inquiry to sit for nine months with a report to be sent to the House. The majority of us oppose this and it will be defeated. In the meantime, the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Dara Murphy, stated, "I think it is up to us in politics to convince people, that there is merit in having a fair, balanced, limited scheme for charging for water ... That achieves the ambition and that reduces waste of water and guarantees we have a stable supply of water." Obviously, that means a stable supply of income coming directly out of people's pockets through a charge.

People have asked whether water charges have been buried. I have always said they are dead but not buried. The task other Members and I have is to ensure they are buried over the next period. I do not know whether it is even worth supporting the commission of inquiry. What will the terms of reference be? Who will be on the commission? If it reports back saying it has convinced the people over nine months through the media that the politicians are right and people have to pay a charge and it has done its job, they will not fall for it. The people are watching the situation closely and they are checking every nook and cranny. I held a meeting on bin charges in Ballyfermot last night. That issue has died down because the Minister did not want the same huge numbers on the streets protesting like they did against water charges. However, those who attended asked questions about water charges such as what the Commission means by saying Ireland is not exempt from water charges under the Water Framework Directive.

This issue raises a question about the entire European project. As a country, we have a responsibility to tell the EU we will not implement this directive and we have a different way of doing things. As has been pointed out in the debate, there are other ways to raise money to fill the fiscal space everybody talks about such as corporate taxation, the Apple issue and the potential bill of between €17 billion and €19 billion, NAMA and credit unions being able to provide funding of between €2 billion and €4 billion for housing and taking the pressure of cutting other services if water services are not paid for.

I remind the House that we have always paid for water services through general taxation and VAT, in particular. That is the way they have been paid for up to now. It is progressive as it relates to the amount people earn. We should return to this. The Government should tell the Commission that we pay for water a different way, which is the same way we have paid for it since the year dot through VAT. That is a more progressive way to do this.

Other aspects of the water charges issue could be debated such as how long it has taken to install water meters, the cost of doing so, the jailing of people and the resistance to the programme. Will the Government stop the water metering programme? Will it accept the fact that the people have said "No" on numerous occasions? Every time Fine Gael and its partners have come back to the House, they say they have listened to the people but they have not. They have listened to the 1% in the EU and the 1% in the private water industry who want to grab our water infrastructure.

Most Independent Members and Sinn Féin have signed up to the Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public Ownership) Bill 2016, which challenges Article 28 of the Constitution, to keep our water services in public ownership. That will be introduced during the next Dáil session. I question whether I will support the commission of inquiry. I would like more detail about who will be on it and the terms of reference. There has never been water poverty in this State because people have not been forced to pay for water directly from their wages. Those who cannot afford to pay are not forced into a position where their water could be cut off. That cannot happen now anyway because the previous legislation was amended under pressure from the people. However, that could happen in the future and it has happened in other countries such as the US where people's water is cut off because they cannot pay a water bill.

The Government can get money elsewhere to pay for water services. That should be done in a progressive way and should be linked to changes in our use of water and to planning and development regulations. Why does every house that is built not have a dual water system, which uses rain water to flush toilets and run washing machines with clean water only going through taps? That would be an investment for the next century, never mind the next three or four years. That issue has been raised on numerous occasions at council meetings throughout the country but such measure has never been implemented. I question the Government's sincerity on environmental issues.

Photo of Catherine ConnollyCatherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas as ucht an deis cainte ar an ábhar thar a bheith tábhachtach seo a bheith faighte agam. Tá gá práinneach ann réiteach a fháil sa chomhthéacs seo, ach ní hí seo an réiteach. Níl anseo ach cur i gcéill amach is amach. Tá sé suimiúil go bhfuil an Rialtas, cosúil leis an Rialtas a bhí againn an bhliain seo caite, an-tógtha le Lá na nAmadán. Sa bhliain 2015, sheol siad amach na billí ar an gcéad lá de mhí Aibreáin.

Is í an dáta céanna atá i gceist arís sa dhéachtreachtaíocht seo.

I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute on a subject that is most important. I come from Galway city and have a background of having served as a member of a local authority for 17 years and I am acutely aware of the importance of water services, a cryptosporidium crisis and a polluted lake. As I speak, approximately 4,000 to 5,000 people around Carraroe, in Connemara, cannot drink their water. I do not speak from a position of negativity or as part of the radical loony left but as a very pragmatic, practical, radical woman who believes that in any civilised society there are basic services that unite us in solidarity with each. Water is one of those services, as are waste collection services and health and education services.

It seems that this is a complete pretence and fudge of an issue, and there are more holes in this apparent solution as there are, unfortunately, in our water system that is leaking on a daily basis. The figures we had in Galway were that there is anything up to 40% leakage from the system. We have to deal with that but I am afraid that Fianna Fáil has failed and I do not expect Fine Gael to change that. However, I at least respect its position. It has repeatedly said that water charges are necessary. Fianna Fáil told the electorate that they were not and that it would vote to get rid of them. Rather than use our time and our new energy and the broad range of opinion in this Dáil to find a solution and to work together, we are using our energy on draft legislation that is going nowhere and which will give a watery birth in nine months time that will not be a solution to anything, with the possibility of further extensions if we need them, depending on the political situation. That is while the metering situation continues against people's wishes. We do not want it.

We want to conserve water. I take exception to the phrase, "the polluter pays". I am tired of that terminology. I am not a polluter and most people are not polluters; we are users of a basic service that we cannot live without. To say that we need to be punished in order to save is ridiculous in the extreme. It does not tie in with any research in psychology or with marketing. People must be brought on board in terms of this issue and most of us want to be brought on board. We have children and we want to hand down a better environment to them and the best way to do that is to bring us all on board.

In terms of education, that should happen with the Government and the European Union, which continue to look on citizens as polluters and users of services rather than as active citizens who want to share in making the world a better place. If Fianna Fáil was seriously interested in new politics it would stand with us and say, "Stop this charade and have a referendum to ensure that water remains in public ownership". That would give confidence to the people.

What really highlights the cynicism of the entire approach is the €100 grant that was brought in to help us to conserve water but now it has been scrapped, which shows that it was just a foolish bribe at the time. However, as can be seen, people are not easily bribed. Now that it is gone, Fianna Fáil does not care about whether we conserve water. There is not a word in the legislation about conservation. There is no reward for us as users, nor is there any positive mechanism to keep us on board. No money being made available to local authorities to help them.

I became a member of the local authority in 1999 and left it when I was elected to this House. During that time we begged the Government for funding. We knew exactly what was happening. We had very good staff on the ground whose number have since been reduced. We had good engineers and other staff but they were all removed. More than 20% of the local authority staff in Galway was reduced. How could they carry out any sort of job on water services? Even within that they gave us an excellent service. If a problem arose and we called them, they came out immediately. We now have a situation where we make a telephone call to a service in Cork, which results in us going around in circles.

I am not in the business of demonising Irish Water. I believe the demonisation of the chief executive officer of Irish Water, the former city manger of Galway, was and is unacceptable. I have had my rows with that man but it is unacceptable to demonise Irish Water and its staff when it was set up to provide a service. When what was happening was exposed, however, through very good journalism, there were heads on a platter rather than the Government taking stock and saying it should examine this because it is not working.

Without a doubt, Irish Water was set up with a view to privatising the service. That privatisation has been stopped in its tracks for the moment but I am not foolish enough to believe we have stopped the tide. We have done nothing of the sort. We have simply tried to hold the system to account on behalf of the people who put us in this House. We promised the people who elected us that we would strive and do our best to ensure people had a water service as a human right, which is what they, and we, deserve, and that it would be paid for out of taxes.

I have a difficulty with this issue. While I welcome the suspension of water charges I believe it is the wrong way to go in the sense that we should abolish them and work together to have a service, paid for from taxation, that brings us all on board. Many ways have been outlined for increasing the level of taxation but it is an insult to the people to say they do not want to pay for services. They do, but they want to pay for them out of their taxes and it is our role as a Dáil to increase and broaden the tax base to allow us provide basic services. Dividing one citizen from another, as we have done with health in terms of private and public health care, bin charges in terms of those who can afford to pay them and those who cannot, and repeating the process with water is shocking.

Those in Government have got caught up with an EU mantra that is foolish in the extreme where we at the lowest level have to comply with rules but those at the highest levels do not. They are also deliberately misinterpreting a water directive when it could be interpreted in a positive way to conserve water, and to examine how we can do that and how we can bring people on board. Those in Government and, particularly Fianna Fáil, have wasted a golden opportunity and it shows up the cynicism of the new politics that its members have come in here day after day since February to talk about.

6:10 pm

Photo of John LahartJohn Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next speaker is Deputy Fitzpatrick who is sharing his time with Deputy Durkan.

Photo of Peter FitzpatrickPeter Fitzpatrick (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this topic. The amendment to the Water Services Act basically means that there will be a suspension of domestic water charges for the period from 1 April 2016 until 31 December 2016. This suspension can also be extended if required. During the last election campaign, I, along with my party colleagues, argued that we must have a system in place to charge for domestic water and wastewater services. I spoke on the issue of water charges in this House in April and my position has not changed.

A number of people on the opposite side of the House have campaigned exclusively on the issue of water charges. One would think that the issue of water is the only one that affects the country. It is not the issue that people who call to my clinic want to talk about. The real issues I hear raised on the doorsteps include the Government's plans for the health service; finding a solution to the housing crisis; improved funding for the education sector, in particular the Dundalk Institute of Technology; creating new and sustainable jobs; and the impact of the UK leaving the EU. These are the real issues facing people.

It is interesting to note that a survey carried out among voters in this year's general election showed that only 8% of them had indicated water as their main issue. People have told me that under no circumstances must we ever go back to the boom and bust policies of Fianna Fáil that destroyed this country. The populist position to take is to reject charging for water and wastewater services. We have seen in the past week how those who pursue populist policies run from their responsibility when they get the opportunity to act on their policies. I have no doubt that we would see the same happen here should those be given the opportunity to act on their populist policies. I would urge people to consider this when they next vote.

I want to put on record my position should it be decided that water charges are to be abolished. All people bar none who have paid their water charges should be given a full refund in the event of water charges being abolished. Under no circumstances should those people be left out of pocket because they legally paid their bills. The nine-month suspension of the charges is to allow for a process to be set up to examine the charging of water services.

An expert commission is to be established which will make recommendations on a sustainable long-term funding model for the delivery of domestic public and wastewater services. A special Oireachtas committee will then consider the recommendations and, in turn, the Oireachtas will be asked to vote on them. At this stage, my concern is that those on the opposite benches know how they are going to vote regardless of any recommendation. They have their heads stuck in the sand and do not want to see any reasonable alternative to water charges. I ask all those opposite to provide a viable alternative to a charging system for water and wastewater if they have one. Simply stating that it is to be paid out of general taxation is not a realistic position. People are tired of hearing the same old line from those in opposition. It is now time to put up or shut up. If a Member has an alternative solution, now is the time to show it to the people who voted for him or her.

We hear a lot of new politics in this Dáil. Now, we have an opportunity to see it in action. I look forward to hearing the views of those on all sides of the House when the recommendations are published. It will be interesting to see new politics in action then. What happens if the Commission and the committee both recommend that the current system or something similar should be implemented? Will those opposite vote for the good of the country or will they vote for their own personal gain?

Once again, I record my position on water charges. We should have a system of charging in place that is based on usage with a generous free allowance. We must encourage those who use the least and discourage those who waste water. If the House decides that water charges are to be abolished, all those who have been compliant and paid their water charges must get a full refund. We must not under any circumstances disadvantage those who have been legally compliant. The bottom line is that the country needs to invest over €1 billion in its public water system just to bring it up to an acceptable standard. The money has to come from somewhere. It will not just appear. I ask those who think water should be free where they think the funding is going to come from. I look forward to the findings of the expert commission which I hope will provide a way forward for a modern and reliable waste water service.

6:20 pm

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Over the years, I have had numerous occasions to speak on this and similar subjects in the House. The debate has always been the same. It is a question of whether there should be a charge for domestic water supplies. I believe there should be a recognition that an investment is needed in the development of the water supply system far beyond anything that has been envisaged over the past 30 years. I have put down numerous parliamentary questions to various Governments and Ministers over the years inquiring as to the proposals to provide the capital funding for the provision of adequate water supply, storage, treatment and transmission services. It is now recognised that the costs are laid out more or less as had been indicated in the past number of years at somewhere between €5 billion and €8 billion although it could be more if we were to have a reliable water supply similar to that which is available in other countries throughout the EU, which gets the blame for a lot of things.

I can remember when our water supply was comparable to most others in the western world. When one went on holidays to neighbouring countries one was always very careful about the water supply. That has changed because they have invested in their water supplies while we have not. It is one thing to curtail the quality of water, but it is quite another to curtail the quality of water by virtue of a lack of investment and to put lives at risk. We have had the situation in this country over the past number of years where rivers and lakes were polluted to an appalling extent while at the same time we had people saying we could certainly not have any charge for water. We cannot have any recognition that water requires an investment and we will do as we did before by going on and ignoring it. It does not work that way.

The demand from industry as well as from the domestic market are such that a failure to respond in a clear and emphatic way to the investment requirements of our water supply system will mean our industrial activities will be curtailed dramatically. It will not be possible to provide the water services required for an expanding economy, it will not be possible to expand the water services required for industry and it will not be possible to do it for an expanding population. Taking all of that into account, there is a need for massive investment along the lines already identified. Where that is going to be funded from is the next question. It will not be possible to fund capital expenditure of that magnitude from a domestic charge. Neither should it be expected to be hived over to the industrial sector because we either want jobs or we do not. If we want to kill off economic growth, the way to do it is to pile as much taxation on the job creating sector, on each person who is at work and on each employer, as possible. Eventually, we will not need a water supply because nobody will be at work. The position is clear.

We must recognise that a charge of some description is necessary to recognise the fact that water is not free. This question has come up again and again. We are told water is free because it comes down from the clouds and we should know all about that in this country as it comes down often enough. However, it has never been free. I remember when everybody went to the village square with a bucket and turned a handle. This is not so many years ago. In every square in every town, there was a pump and one got the water and brought it home. It was free in that no one can impede a person from gaining access to a water supply albeit one might have to go to the river with a bucket. However, time passed and we became more sophisticated. We provided a water supply to households. It then emerged that it would cost more money and we would have to do something about it. That was done too. Incidentally, I can remember a time when it was suggested at an election that we would not have to pay rates. There was a figure in the old rates system in respect of water. It was a nominal sum but it was there. Somebody decided to abolish rates. I will not say who it was. I cannot remember. My memory does not go back that far. It happened, however, and motor tax was abolished at the same time. The next thing that happened was that the country went bust and we had to reintroduce the whole thing all over again because there was no money in the kitty. People asked why we did not fill the potholes or provide water or do all the other things we were supposed to. The answer was that there was no money. It all had to be changed over again.

As such, when people say it is all provided for in general taxation, I note that it was not. I put down a parliamentary question to a previous Government asking to what extent the water costs had been transferred to general taxation and the answer was that they had not been. There one is. I am not saying the Minister of the time was telling a lie because I know that Ministers never do that. Certainly, the Minister at the time did not tell a lie. He was giving the information as he was asked as to whether it was provided for in general taxation and he said "No".

We are now back where we started asking how we fund and provide a service in the future or if we do it at all. If we fail to do it, we will have run away from our responsibilities and at some stage in the future, somebody will pass judgment on what we have been doing. The EU has been blamed. I was listening to Mr. Nigel Farage this morning. I do not like to speak about those who are outside the House who cannot speak for themselves, but he had a long list of proposals for the future admonishing the European Union, despite the fact that he has been a representative in the European Parliament for a number of years. One of them was tariffs on trade which is to say isolationism. That will be very interesting in the future because we will not be able to sell our goods and they will not be able to sell theirs. Everybody will put up the barriers and eventually things will come to a halt. That did not work in the past and we changed it. Other people have ideas about the system in eastern Europe 35 years ago or more where the theory was that everybody piled everything into the grand pool and everybody drew from it as time went by. Of course, that system went bust.

No one wants to accept responsibility for everyone else's problems. Things do not work that way.

Regardless of whether we like it, the question we must now ask is whether a nominal charge for a water supply is good. My view is that it is, as it reminds everyone that we should conserve. Conservation must be a major issue in the debate. Whatever the outcome, we must ask what is in the best interests of those people and industries that require an ongoing supply of water and what is the responsibility of publicly elected representatives whose job it is to provide others with that service. It will not be enough to fudge the issue and say that someone else will have the responsibility to do it, that they will not see it at all because it will be a general issue and that they will tax X, Y and Z because they will not accept responsibility. We must accept responsibility. I favour the concept of either a flat charge for a basic service or a waiver system, which we had previously and which would take families' circumstances into account. There is no objection to that.

The danger is that, once an issue becomes a political football, it will eventually be kicked to death and nothing will happen. Consider our current scenario. A candidate in a by-election decided that he would oppose water charges, full stop. Subsequently, a party in this House made the same decision, followed by another party. Not every party agreed at the same time. Unfortunately, democracy does not work like that. It would be nice if it did. If this becomes a political football, we could well find the same question still hanging over our heads in ten years' time as to how to fund a water supply that is sufficient to meet our domestic and industrial needs as well as increased expectations and demands.

At this point, we must ask ourselves what we are about. It is not just enough to blame the EU. The EU does not impose anything. It imposes what was agreed by the member states making their individual contributions. That is the sum total of what comes out of the EU by way of directive. There is no use in pretending that it is not. That is how it has always been. Something might have been agreed last year, five years ago or ten years ago.

In the final analysis, we must invest in the water supply. We have a duty to the Irish people to ensure that this is done. We must put in place a system that is reliable and will not break down every five minutes. We must renew the existing system. There is no use in people complaining about pipes being porous and leaking water all over the place while also complaining about the expenditure. We must do something about it. If we are to do that, we must start somewhere.

I wish to comment on general taxation. Many of us received e-mails and requests before the general election to the effect that motor tax should have been abolished or attached to general taxation or energy tax. That sounds good and some countries have done that. Maybe it suits them. Maybe they get or generate their energy in a different way. However, we tried that as well and it did not work. There was resistance when the alternative was introduced. As they say, that is politics.

Regarding investment in water, how to regulate it, how and whether to charge for it and whether to install meters, it has adequately been proven in my time in the House that meters are necessary. If there is any possibility of conserving water, that is how it will be done. People will automatically know that they must conserve because water will cost more past a certain level. It will be in everyone's interests to conserve. People will say that we should meter afterwards, but that is not how things work. We must put the infrastructure in place before we can develop it.

In so far as taxation is concerned, we must undoubtedly find a way to invest. The major capital investment that is required cannot come from domestic users. The amount would be too great. It could have been done 25 or 30 years ago, but it is too late now. In my dealings with domestic householders, they do not mind paying a fee as long as they get a good quality of supply. Deputies who represent parts of the country that depend on group schemes and so on will point out that the people there have been paying for their water supplies all of their lives. Some have been paying up to €2,000 or €3,000 per annum, which is a considerable amount.

One way or another, we need a greater recognition of the fact that we must find a way to cease polluting, improve the quality and reliability of supply, resolve the antipathy that has been generated towards a charge for water and find an acceptable mechanism.

6:30 pm

Photo of John LahartJohn Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next three Deputies are sharing time.

Photo of John CurranJohn Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to share time with Deputy O'Rourke and the Acting Chairman once we manoeuvre the situation with the Chair.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this debate. I am pleased to support the Water Services (Amendment) Bill 2016. It sets out a route to end the water charges regime. The failure to pass the EUROSTAT test and the low payment rates have undermined the basis of our water services model. Water charges failed in 2015, with only 53% of bills being paid, equating to an annual revenue of approximately €144 million. Last year, the water conservation grant cost approximately €100 million. There was an administration charge of €25 million and interest on repayments of a further €41 million. Expenditure was in the region of €166 million against income of €144 million, generating a loss.

The Bill reflects Fianna Fáil's agreement in facilitating a Fine Gael-led minority Government to see water charges suspended immediately and the decision on future charges to be decided by the Dáil. The Bill is a compromise. Members from all sides entered the election with their manifestos and policy positions on water and water charges. The Minister and his party did not win the election. Neither did we. We have different views on what should be done with water charges and Irish Water. It became clear that the dynamic of the Thirty-second Dáil was somewhat different than that of the Thirty-first, with a majority of Members favouring the abolition of the charges and many favouring the abolition of Irish Water. It is clear from listening to other Deputies' contributions that, despite having an electoral mandate and this being one of their policy positions, they failed to engage in the process. The Bill is a compromise, but it gives effect to what we set out to do. We did not win the election and we are not in government, but this was a key component of our campaign. While the Bill retains Irish Water, it suspends the conservation grant and establishes the legislation to suspend the charges.

Deputy Durkan asked what the long-term funding models for the delivery of water would be, but that is the point of establishing the expert commission. We are not walking away from the issue. This is not an irresponsible Bill. We understand Deputy Durkan's points about the need for future investment in water services.

It is part of a programme. Suspending the charges affords a window of opportunity, or timeframe, for Members of the House to engage, first through the expert commission and then through a committee of the House. The matter will be brought back to the Dáil within nine months, which I welcome. I am disappointed that not all Members engaged in the process to establish the programme. The vast majority of Members were of the view that the charges should be suspended.

I do not want to repeat many of the points made, but I must state we sometimes forget very quickly that is only a little over two years since the issue first arose. In October 2013, wintertime, the Irish Independentstated:

Dublin City Council said supplies could be cut off today from 6pm until 7am – two hours longer than yesterday – and that restrictions will remain until Monday. The shut-off comes during a busy mid-term week when Dublin is bustling with tourists and Halloween revellers...

The article quotes the city engineer as saying: "The problem is that the lake water is proving very difficult to treat – not because it's bad, but because of the characteristics of the water." He also stated: "Normally, Ballymore Eustace is a stable environment because it's a big, deep lake."

In Dublin the water supply is on a knife edge; there is a fine balance. At any given time, our usage is near capacity and there are not many spare resources. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan touched briefly on future economic and residential development, in respect of which there is a problem. It struck me that a conservation grant was given to households last year. If that money which amounted to a sum in the region of €100 million had been invested directly in repairing leaks or improving capacity, it might have had a far greater output in terms of the water supply in the Dublin area.

With regard to metering, much of the leakage occurs not necessarily in private properties but from main pipes along roads. Neighbourhood and block metering, which helps local authorities to identify leaks in areas, needs to be established and implemented in order that leaks can be identified quickly.

In June 2012 the Oireachtas committee produced a report. At the time the Minister's Department was stating 41% of water nationally was lost through leakages. I believe it used the expression "unaccounted for", which meant loss through leakages. From 2000 to 2010, my party in government invested in the region of €500 million per year in water services. Much of the investment was in sewage treatment services and to improve water quality. Of equal importance, particularly in the Dublin context, where the supply side is under significant pressure, is ensuring a significant investment programme to fix leaking pipes to reduce the rate of water leakage substantially.

I am pleased that the Bill is before the House. I will be very interested in seeing and working with the findings and recommendations of the commission and the Oireachtas committee.

6:40 pm

Photo of Frank O'RourkeFrank O'Rourke (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to speak on this topic. The current water charges system has failed. It has failed because, when considered in the context of overall taxation policy, it has failed the fairness test. Like many other policies the Fine Gael–Labour Party Government implemented when correcting the public finances or sharing financial gains, its policy in this regard was to prioritise the well-off instead of the less well-off. All of its budgets were adjudicated on by the ESRI as being regressive in nature, as distinct from the fairer progressive approach needed. The ESRI's report on budget 2015 which confirmed Social Justice Ireland's analysis of that budget stated it had been the fourth regressive budget in a row introduced by the Fine Gael–Labour Party Government and a budget that widened the gap between rich and poor. The ESRI's analysis of the previous year's budget, budget 2014, showed that it had had its greatest impact - a reduction of 2% - on low-income groups.

For taxation measures to be accepted by the people, they must be fair, but the way in which the Fine Gael–Labour Party Government went about implementing the water charges regime lacked fairness. A quick analysis of the income and expenditure figures for water charges demonstrates what a total fiasco the former Government made of the implementation of the charges regime. Let us consider last year's figures. In 2015 only 53% of water bills were paid. This level of payment secured annual revenue to the State of €144 million. However, €100 million was spent by the Government on the water grant which was promoted as some kind of a water conservation incentive. However, this payment was not linked with any conservation measure; it was only to get the people to pay their water charges. It was an indirect admission by the Government that its approach to water charges had failed. In 2015, €41 million was due in interest repayments over the year, while another €25 million was paid in administration costs. On this basis, taking costs and revenue into account, the State actually lost €22 million in total on its water charges regime in 2015. Some €46 million a year is being spent on wages in Irish Water, while more will be spent on bonuses. This is on top of the €172 million in set-up costs. I am not aware of any other tax introduced in recent memory in the collection of which money was lost. We need to end this failed regime and move on from this issue.

When all costs are factored in, namely, the €540 million spent on water meters, the €172 million spent in the setting up of Irish Water and the €46 million spent in running it and paying wages and bonuses, the Government's creation of Irish Water will leave the taxpayer €759 million worse off this year than if it had not been set up. Taking this in the context of the local authorities already having in place many specialised and dedicated staff dealing with water-related issues, was there a need to create such a monster as Irish Water? The staff in local authorities are carrying out the works at the request of Irish Water.

One of the reasons for setting up Irish Water was related to its ability to borrow money off balance sheet. Private borrowing by Irish Water is now effectively impossible owing to its growing reliance on Government payments. It will be more expensive for Irish Water to borrow on the markets than the Government. Why would we set up this body, facilitate it to borrow money at more expensive rates than are available to the Government and then effectively ask the people to meet the increased cost of borrowing through their water charges?

Water charges were introduced following the introduction of the universal social charge, the property tax and the removal of many social protection benefits, including benefits that were taken from older people. When the Fine Gael–Labour Party Government made a decision to adjust universal social charge levels in its last budget, it decided to reward the well-off disproportionately, which was another example of its regressive and unfair approach to taxation policies.

The Government will introduce further amendments to the Bill to ensure the suspension period runs in tandem with the timeframe for the work of the expert commission and the Oireachtas on the issue. Our support for the Bill is subject to this happening. No new bills will be liable for payment until the end of March 2017, by which time the Dáil is due to have voted on the future of water charges having considered the expert commission’s report and the recommendations of the special Oireachtas committee. In effect, water charges are gone until the Dáil votes on the matter.

In the European Parliament in September 2015 Sinn Féin MEPs voted in favour of "providing for the application of a progressive charge that is proportional to the amount of water used", It is clear that the official Sinn Féin position on this issue abroad is quite different from that at home. From 2007 to 2011 the then Northern Ireland Minister for Regional Development, Mr. Conor Murphy of Sinn Féin, had the opportunity to reverse the policy on water metering, but he made no attempt to do so. Under his watch, a comprehensive water metering programme took place across domestic properties in Northern Ireland. In the recent Brexit referendum campaign I watched with interest as Sinn Féin campaigned for a "Remain" vote. In every EU referendum that took place in this jurisdiction in recent memory it campaigned against the European Union. Which is the real Sinn Féin? Again, we find its approach is completely inconsistent.

Ireland faces a range of issues, not simply the argument on water charges. Dáil Éireann is obliged to confront these matters. The health service, housing, the future of education, including special needs education, supports for older people and crime prevention all require a major political commitment. We need to resolve the water charges issue and move on and the Bill gives us an opportunity to do so. It gives us a window of opportunity to end water charges, solve the problem of Irish Water and move on to the serious political issues, while still enabling stable government at a time when stable government is most needed. The Bill reflects the first part of the Fianna Fáil agreement in facilitating a minority Government that will see water charges immediately suspended and their future decided by the Dáil.

Photo of John LahartJohn Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Bill and commend my colleagues who participated in the talks on the formation of a Government and negotiated to ensure the Bill would form part of the Fianna Fáil agreement to facilitate a minority Government.

I represent a constituency that is divided on water charges. In one part, albeit one that is not restricted geographically, significant resistance to the water metering programme continues, while in another part, the programme did not meet such resistance and was greeted with enthusiasm by some.

Speaking previously on this issue, I noted how the establishment of Irish Water had the potential to be a ground-breaking development on a par with the establishment of the ESB. As I pointed out at the time, however, Irish Water's destiny was sealed from the moment it was established, accommodated by a guillotined debate in this Chamber when elected Members were denied an opportunity to discuss amendments or engage in any serious worthwhile debate. The previous Government then engaged in perhaps a dozen U-turns and the then Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Phil Hogan, threatened to punish non-payers by reducing their water supply to a trickle.

It could have been so different. The speed with which the previous coalition moved to shoehorn this utility into existence raised deep suspicions among members of the pubic about the possibility of water services being privatised. This, with the fact that thousands of people, many of whom are vulnerable and rely on State assistance and entitlements, simply could not afford to pay, deeply angered people. This anger was felt not only by traditionally vulnerable people but also by public servants, gardaí, nurses and teachers, all of whom had been put to the pin of their collar and baulked at the level of charges being suggested in reports.

The failure of Irish Water was not solely because people did not want to pay. There was a failure to win public confidence and secure moral public investment in the utility through a lead-in time of between three and five years. The company also failed to secure the confidence of the most committed supporters of water conservation and metering who envisaged a smart, flexible and responsive system that would genuinely reward efforts at conservation. Instead, everyone who wanted one got a conservation grant for doing nothing.

The previous Government insulted people's intelligence. The Minister spoke recently about the need for education in the context of pay-by-weight bin charges. A university business faculty somewhere must be designing a course on how not to build a commercial state utility using Irish Water as an example. Thanks to the Fianna Fáil Party's willingness to facilitate the formation of a Government, the challenge we face is to move forward and take the necessary steps to correct the mistakes made.

As I said, however, it could have been so different. The previous Government could have embarked on a prolonged education campaign, beginning in primary schools and evolving into post-primary and community education. Instead, schoolchildren protested with their parents at marches and wrote the right to water principle into their 2016 proclamations. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources could have embarked on a detailed, dynamic communications strategy informing the public over time of the finite nature of the natural resource that is water. The previous Government could have worked in tandem with the State broadcaster and encouraged it to play its part in producing balanced documentaries about the importance of water conservation and international best practice. It could have invested over time in the science of water conservation, encouraging research into water conservation measures. As I pointed out in a previous contribution, the state of Massachusetts in the United States has introduced new building regulations that oblige builders to ensure hot water flows within 12 seconds of the tap being turned on. The previous Government could have used the opportunity to design a smart metering programme that enabled consumers to monitor their water use, thereby empowering them in terms of usage. It could have explored additional water harvesting technology for domestic use and examined further building regulations that could have assisted reduction in domestic water use. The previous Government could have designed an intelligent programme but did not do so and, in its haste, squandered a major opportunity to do something great for at least a generation. Instead, it designed, at mesmerising speed, a model that appeared to envisage Irish Water being fattened up for privatisation. It then promised to punish citizens who would not pay, the majority of whom could not pay.

The previous Government lost its mandate on water charges at the general election. The Fianna Fáil Party made a commitment to the electorate and this Bill is the first step in achieving it. We have outlined a clear pathway for realising this commitment, and the majority of Members of this Dáil will decide on the future of water charges following the report of the expert commission and Oireachtas committee.

6:50 pm

Photo of Alan FarrellAlan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take issue with Deputy John Lahart's remarks that the previous Government lost its mandate on Irish Water. All parties have agreed that the RTE exit poll taken on the day of the previous general election was highly accurate. The poll found that 5% of those who gave the Fianna Fáil Party their first preference voted on the issue of water. If one were to analyse the specific rationale behind the decision of individual voters to vote for particular candidates, the water factor would be unquantifiable. There is no validity, therefore, in the argument that the majority of Members of the Dáil elected in February oppose water charges or that they were elected to abolish Irish Water. It is impossible to determine whether this is the case and I do not believe the extreme left on this issue.

I will not defend the actions of the previous Government, of which I was not a member. It is clear that the construct of Irish Water was flawed in terms of gaining public acceptance. As a Fine Gael Party Deputy in the previous Dáil, I was unhappy with certain issues related to Irish Water. Just before the previous Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, changed an element of the water charging regime, I voiced my concerns in an interview with RTE, as did many other Deputies on the day in question. The very next day the Cabinet took the welcome decision to change its position.

The bottom line with regard to the outcome of the general election is that the previous Government made mistakes on a multitude of issues, including Irish Water. We are human and the mistakes that Government made cost the careers of dozens of Fine Gael and Labour Party Deputies. I have a major problem with the concept that because the majority of Deputies in the previous Dáil passed an unpopular law introducing water charges based on commitments given by Deputy John Lahart's party in the preceding Dáil, we must completely undo and fundamentally change the manner in which a public service utility is structured and funded. There is something inherently wrong with that proposition.

I take a principled position on water charges. Since 2009, charging for domestic water use has been a Fine Gael Party policy which I signed up to in 2009 at local elections when I was re-elected as a councillor, again in 2011, when I was elected to Dáil Éireann, and in 2016 when I was re-elected to the Dáil. While I have no desire to see water charges removed, I accept that the establishment of a commission examining the structure of Irish Water and the charges it applies is a good thing. It is a pity the political cost of the ongoing fallout from the introduction of water charges has been a debate involving the suspension of water charges.

The Minister will meet Commissioner Vella next week.

I have no wish to speak for the Minister, but I imagine the question he will be asking is whether we could be fined, potentially, for our suspension of water charges, because Article 9.4 of the Water Framework Directive applies and the derogation does not apply. Are we going to be fined?

The cost could be similar to the figure Ireland was fined for turf cutting. I understand that figure was €25,000 per day. If so, it would cost the State approximately €10 million over the course of a year or €7.5 million if it was for nine months. I doubt that will be the case and imagine it would be for 12 months. That is a total of €10 million that we could be spending on water services.

I offer some examples. A gentleman who worked for Dublin City Council and Dublin Corporation for 40 years was in my office recently. He was a very nice man. He worked in water services provision for the city council, as well as Fingal and South Dublin county councils at various stages. He referenced the Vartry tunnel in Dublin which supplies approximately 340,000 customers. It is 150 years old but does not have a brick or any cement in it. It is a natural bored hole, literally cut out of the rock, muck and everything else around it underground. It is in danger of collapse. Irish Water and Dublin City Council, on its behalf, must service the tunnel. Those involved have to shut off the water and crawl up a hole in the ground. If there is a collapse, they have to shut off the water and literally crawl up a hole in the ground to try to find it. In 2016 that is a perverse state of affairs. I have seen a report on it. It was provided to me by the gentleman I referred to. The report is on the record of and was debated by Dublin City Council many years ago. The report identified the requirement to fix the tunnel but nothing happened. We have had 50 years of complete and abject failure of successive Governments to invest in water infrastructure, yet the moment we instigate a charging regime that, I hope, was to normalise the investment process, we suspend it for political expediency purposes.

Dublin operates at 98% capacity. We are not having a drought now but if we had a drought in the summer months for a couple of weeks at most, and Dublin's supply from County Wicklow and elsewhere and Fingal's supply from Leixlip and elsewhere dried up then potentially hundreds of thousands of customers would be either throttled, that is to say, there would be a reduction in water pressure, or shut off. Hundreds of thousands of people would be affected. Most of our European counterparts operate on a 15% capacity. In other words, they are operating at 85% and have 15% headroom for such eventualities. We do not. We have 2% headroom.

There are 16 locations throughout the country where, if a person flushes the toilet, the wastewater goes directly out to sea untreated. Two of these are in my constituency in the vicinity of Rush. On three occasions in the past month alone, four beaches in my constituency were closed on the advice of the Environmental Protection Agency on the basis of toilets overflowing and wastewater from treatment facilities ending up in the Irish Sea.

The Dáil arithmetic requires us to adopt a resourceful position. I say as much because if we had not adopted this position, we probably would not have a government. Furthermore, even if we had, a democratic vote of Dáil Éireann would abolish Irish Water outright as well as the charges. That would be the end of that. Instead, an opportunity has been provided to us with Fianna Fáil support, which is appreciated, for the purposes of discussing this matter to ensure that we get it right this time. That is good. I remind the Deputies opposite of an RTE exit poll. It is available and people can download and assess it. According to the poll, only 5% of voters voted for Fianna Fáil based on the issue of water.

I wish to touch on the Water Framework Directive and Article 9.4 in particular. The Commission has given a rather unambiguous response. The so-called Irish derogation would no longer be an option. Having come off RTE "Drivetime" and a discussion with Deputy Paul Murphy, I imagine the response will not put an end to the debate on the derogation. The bottom line is that the European Commission has said that the derogation no longer applies and that we are not in a position to abolish water charges without consequences. I hope this hastens the debate in terms of ensuring that we have a reasonable and rational discussion about a reasonable level of funding and Ireland being the only country in the EU or the OECD that does not have water charges or that did not have water charges heretofore.

I was in the Chair when Deputy Ruth Coppinger took to her feet earlier. She said this Bill was unconstitutional because it went against the EU Water Framework Directive. That puzzled me and, I imagine, anyone with who has read the Ladybird book on the law. The bottom line is that we have a law in place and an opportunity to ensure we frame it correctly in terms of a reduction of taxation for our constituencies and citizens throughout the State. Moreover, we must ensure that the polluter pays, which was the principle adopted with the Water Framework Directive in 2003. The directive set out that by 2010 all EU member states would agree their position on a charging regime. We had a derogation because we did not have such a regime, but we do now.

It is interesting that the Department submitted its first river basin management plan in 2010 without reference to the derogation. I was a Member at the time the debate took place on the question in 2012. The Commission published a report on the Water Framework Directive and Ireland. I remember the arguments in the House and the briefing notes on the fact that there no longer was a derogation. I recall the debate centred around whether it had been signed away as part of the bailout. I believe it was.

We have had 840,000 meters installed throughout the State. What an extraordinary waste of public resources it would be if we were to abolish Irish Water and water charges at the end of this process. Getting rid of 75% of the Irish Water's phase 1 programme for the introduction of water meters would be an incredible waste of resources. Having said that, I remember the statistics from 2014 on the number of properties identified as having major leaks. One property in particular was leaking 1 million litres of water per week, enough to supply the entire town of Lusk in north county Dublin. I recall Deputy Brendan Howlin referenced Enniscorthy, a town with a similar population. The bottom line is that without water meters that would not have been identified, because they were not on-premises leaks. It is good that we are installing meters and it would be an extraordinary waste of our resources if we failed to utilise the meters that have been installed. Whether we agree with it from an ideological perspective, the meters are in place. They cannot be taken out and stored like the e-voting machines, never to be seen again. The bottom line is that they are in place, the taxpayer has paid for them and we should use them.

I made the point about Ireland being the only country in Europe or the OECD that has not had water charges heretofore. We are a unique nation in the sense of our partnership with the European Union. We like to think of ourselves as being special to some degree, but really we are not. We are an incredibly impressive country in terms of what we achieve. This is a small island on the outskirts of Europe, yet we are world leaders in so many areas. We have a highly skilled workforce and a vibrant economy, which thankfully is beginning to come back. However, we still do not accept the basic principle that everyone else pays for water production and that we pay 49.5% marginal income tax. That is quite enough.

A person on a low to medium or an above-average income who is asked, "Will you pay more tax to have proper water infrastructure?" will always answer, "No. I pay enough tax already."

For 50 years our taxation system fundamentally failed to invest enough taxpayers' money into water infrastructure because it was underground and could not be seen. Local authority members were more engaged in fixing potholes, putting in playgrounds and things like that, which is fine. I was a councillor for seven years and accept that is what happened. However, for over 50 years Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government failed to invest properly.

The suspension of water charges, as envisaged in the Bill, presents a difficulty for me and many others who worked very hard to ensure that this arrangement was introduced in the first place. It was not something we wanted to do, but it was the right thing to do to ensure the burden on taxpayers was reduced in their individual taxation bills which incentivised work. We took over in March 2011 and we hit the bottom in March 2012. At that point this was designed to allow us to move forward, have a sustainable level of investment by the consumer in our infrastructure and see the rewards. We have ramped up investment, from €250 million in 2012 to approximately €550 million this year.

I can state clearly and unambiguously that the suspension of water charges because of political impetus is abhorrent to me. However, I accept that if we had not done this Irish Water would already have been abolished and charges with it. I hope we can have a meaningful debate across the House in a respectful way, as it should be, to ensure we get the best possible outcome from the debate. We should not simply ignore the expertise we are bringing in which, I am sure, will be agreed by the House, because of a political or misplaced ideological position. I understand we do not want to increase the burden on people but we need to face the reality that if we do not continue with a reasonable level of charge, it will result in a curtailment of public services or an increase in taxation.

7:10 pm

Photo of Dara CallearyDara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to share my time with Deputy Anne Rabbitte.

I listened to Deputy Alan Farrell's rather grudging acceptance of the Bill. In years to come, people will look at the story of Irish Water to date and it will come across as one of the greatest public policy implementation failures in recent times. Neither the Deputy nor any of his colleagues at any time acknowledged the failure of implementation here.

Photo of Alan FarrellAlan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy must have missed it.

Photo of Dara CallearyDara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not hear it too much at the end.

The Deputy spoke about meters being in the ground and having a use. However, he refused to acknowledge that they were only there for decoration under an arrangement introduced by his Government. They do not contribute in any way. That was done by the previous Government and in particular the former Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly.

The Deputy spoke of political expediency in introducing the Bill, but he did not acknowledge the lack of accountability. He did not acknowledge that people would accept that the construction the previous Government presented to people to deliver water did not have democratic legitimacy. As a result, the majority of this House as it is currently constituted has a mandate to change and get rid of water fees because of the mistakes and the manner in which the ball was dropped by the previous Government.

A little humility in terms of the implementation would go a long way. We all want that respectful debate and the Bill allows for that to be done with a commission involving experts who know the story internationally. Had that been done at the beginning of the Irish Water charade rather than being rammed down the throat of the people and being set up in a gold-plated way without having any kind of sense of the delivery of the service, the story and this debate might be very different. However, we are here.

Our legal advice is different from that contained in the latest European Commission contribution. The former Deputy, Marian Harkin, MEP, is quoting different legal advice in terms of what derogation means and what water services directive it is using.

Photo of Alan FarrellAlan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The only opinion that matters.

Photo of Dara CallearyDara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

However, the European Commission should also realise that the construct of water charges and Irish Water never achieved democratic legitimacy in this country. It never achieved the support of the people. I hope other events in the past 72 hours will force the Commission to consider how it is doing its job of implementing the ideals of the European Union to which we all subscribe. In terms of representing and reflecting the opinion of people, it must engage with people's concerns and people have serious concerns about water and water charges in this country. While I accept we have different legal opinions, politically the European Commission needs to put this one on its radar.

I wish to bring to the Minister's attention a number of issues in the construct of the Bill. Speaking as a rural Deputy, primary among them is the future role of group water schemes in delivering water services. For the most part, group water schemes are accepted as an essential part of water infrastructure. The members and clients of group water schemes have no difficulty in paying for the service. The majority of them are open to the community or part of the community. All this shows how different the construct of Irish Water could have been.

It is very important that somebody from the National Federation of Group Water Schemes should sit on the commission to bring that experience to bear and bring the views of those who will continue to pay water charges to that table. It is a very Irish way to deliver water through the group water scheme network. Many communities, if they had depended on a State organisation to deliver water, would still be waiting for water, but community-led activity with support from the Department through subsidies ensured they got water.

I have always said we should consider the group water scheme model of delivery in other areas, for instance, broadband, to get services into those areas where central government puts it to the end of the queue or where private companies never bother. It is essential that the voice of group water schemes and their users are represented on the commission and that their views are listened to and not just ticked off.

I welcome the commitment that the capitation that was reduced in line with the €100 grant will be increased. We put huge pressures and demands on group water schemes, which is as it should be for delivering an essential service. It is important that it be delivered properly and healthily. We also need to give them support in doing that. During the years there has been a very good relationship between the former Department, the federation and the various schemes and it is important that continues.

There is a commitment in the programme for Government to continue the subsidies that were provided under the CLÁR programme for bringing water into the most remote areas of the country that can still not get it. It is important that this commitment is fulfilled. There are still areas which do not have huge populations but where there are young families who may be the basis of renewing a community and they need to have water. Without the old CLÁR programme they will not get it.

In that vein, I have noticed a trend in the few planning applications we have seen in recent times, which thankfully are beginning to increase, whereby the water connection fee being charged by Irish Water and local authorities is extraordinary and bordering on extortionate. If we want to encourage families back into rural communities, we need to assist them and not penalise them with development levies and then with a separate water connection fee. In one case a family with two young babies trying to build a house in a rural community are being charged €2,400 just to connect their house, which is not that far away. We need to look at that in an holistic way.

Perhaps the Minister, Deputy Heather Humphreys, working with the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, can look at the way water connection fees are constructed. I accept that they have to be charged, but they should be charged in a way that encourages people and does not penalise them for wanting to move into a rural area.

I want to give credit to the people who work for Irish Water for the central role they have successfully played in the important task of planning. We have identified that it is important for a water utility to have an overarching role as we move forward. Notwithstanding my criticism of Irish Water - I can only speak for the staff in the west region - I have always acknowledged that its team did this very well. We did not need such a large institution to be created in such a gold-plated manner, but that is what happened under the watch of the Minister's predecessor. We needed something much smaller with the ability to react in a speedy manner. We needed a body that could work with the local authority staff who knew the connections on the ground. That is something Irish Water has done well.

The notion that there will be a collapse in the amount of money we are spending on water infrastructure does not add up. If Deputies compare the amount of money spent in recent years with the amount provided directly for councils during Fianna Fáil's time in government, they will find that we were spending more on capital infrastructure than Irish Water has been spending. While I accept that moneys will be better spent by a national co-ordinating body, I do not agree that we need the big, gold-plated, larger-than-life operation that Irish Water has been up to now. I know the word "humility" is not in the dictionary or the pattern of behaviour of the Minister's immediate predecessor. In the Minister's approach to the new commission in the next nine months, he must acknowledge what was done wrong. He must acknowledge the occasions on which legislation and regulations were rushed through the Chamber in a band-aid style manner in the hope that the legitimacy that had flowed away from Irish Water from its establishment would somehow return. That could not be rectified, which is why we are here now. I do not think the legitimacy of water charges will ever be won back because of the disaster that was Irish Water. We should now recreate a water delivery mechanism that will achieve the support of people, work on a national basis in conjunction with the regional plans and the local authorities and meet the water infrastructure needs of a 21st century country. That must be done in a manner that will instil confidence from the outset.

7:20 pm

Photo of Anne RabbitteAnne Rabbitte (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the Water Services (Amendment) Bill 2016. Like my Fianna Fáil colleagues, I support the Bill. I will not discuss the various legal clarifications that are outstanding at this time. As a result of the Bill which reflects the first part of Fianna Fáil's agreement to facilitate a minority Government, water charges will be suspended immediately. I thank the Minister for outlining the timeframe the other day. The suspension period will begin on 1 July, when the work of the commission will kick in. We should receive a report on how it is going in December. The special Oireachtas committee will report back in March and the Dáil will subsequently vote on its recommendations. I understand that if the committee has not fully completed its work, the Minister can determine that the timeframe available to it needs to be expanded.

My colleague, Deputy Dara Calleary, has spoken really well about rural schemes and I do not need to rehash what has been said. One of the reasons we as a party did not support water charges in the very beginning was that we did not believe people should pay for water that was not drinkable. Like many other Deputies, I have experience of this in my home area of east Galway. I live in Portumna where the water is chlorinated on a regular basis because its quality is not great. Eight miles out the road in Woodford there are lead pipes with asbestos connections which are regularly broken. The people of Woodford have waited 15 years for these pipes and asbestos connections to be improved. The footpaths have not been repaired during that time. It was only last year, following the establishment of Irish Water, that they realised they would never have the road repaired because they had gone from No. 11 to No. 33 on the waiting list. I refer to Main Street in Woodford. Although funding was subsequently sought and - fair play to Galway County Council and the Department - the road was repaired, I suggest that in itself was a signal that the pipes were not going to be repaired.

There are other issues with Irish Water in Loughrea, 20 km away. When rain falls, the back gardens of houses in the Coscorrig estate are completely flooded. I suggest this is happening continuously because no one in Irish Water is answerable. We are not feeling its funding coming to us. We could not feel the value of the Irish Water infrastructure because we believed it was a quango. In fact, it was more about public relations and the propaganda of selling its image than it was about giving benefits to people on the ground. The people of Loughrea are still subject to a boil water notice. We cannot get answers when we ask when they will come off it. This issue is having an impact not only on the people of Loughrea but also on the people of Craughwell, further into the county, who are included in the same water scheme. I am trying to build a picture to show the Minister how Irish Water has failed the people of east Galway. I am not just talking about the rural schemes in the villages; I am also talking about towns. Portumna, Woodford, Loughrea and Craughwell have all been affected. People were paying their water charges all the while, even though they felt really reluctant to do so because they were receiving such a poor service. The water was not drinkable and subject to a boil water notice. The authorities in Portumna cannot apply for a blue flag because there is no reason to believe the water supply in the locality will be of sufficient quality two years in a row.

The Minister might say the problems I have mentioned are not all of Irish Water's doing, but I suggest they can be attributed to its failure to put in place an overarching umbrella to support us. When I sat on Galway County Council, we struggled to get clear-cut answers from representatives of Irish Water. When they came before us, they were unable to give us definite answers. They could not give a timeframe for delivery, for example. Everything needs to be subject to time management. People need to receive feedback, but we were not getting the relevant feedback. Both parties have agreed to this legislation which will send this issue out to a commission in order that people can talk about it. We need to find a deliverable solution that will ensure the infrastructure - the pipes and personnel, etc. - will be in place before people on the ground are ever asked to pay water charges again. There is a need for a a timeframe for anything that needs to be delivered. People do not want to pay for water that they cannot drink. They should not have to go down the road to SuperValu or Aldi to buy water, while paying water charges at the same time. I do not want to have to represent people in such circumstances. I do not believe we should have to pay for water if we cannot drink it. I do not have to say anything more than that. I welcome the Bill and look forward to what will come out of the report.

Photo of Robert TroyRobert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this important legislation. Some Members of the Dáil would have suggested it could never be facilitated. We would not be discussing it if it were not for the composition of this Dáil. I compliment my colleague, Deputy Barry Cowen, and the other members of the Fianna Fáil negotiating team for ensuring this legislation would be debated in the Dáil and part of the arrangement for facilitating a minority Government.

I know that representatives of Sinn Féin like to hop up and down. They are masters of the art of expressing sheer indignation. When they are representing people's views, they show how outraged they are about this, that and the other. They put proposals before the Dáil in its early stages during Private Members' business as part of an effort to claim some political credit, even though they absented themselves in having any hand, act or part in the negotiations and talks on the formation of a Government. They did not consider supporting a minority Fine Gael Government or a minority Fianna Fáil Government. They did not consider abstaining to enable some formation to come together in the national interest. They did not feel a duty to alleviate the need to return to the country in a second general election.

This legislation will suspend water charges for a nine-month period.

From 1 July, anyone who has been paying water charges will not have to pay any for nine months. It will afford an opportunity for all Members, after the commission has investigated and reported back, to debate fully where we go from here. My party has stated it is opposed to water charges, like the majority of Members of the Dáil. If the majority stay true to their commitment, water charges will not be reintroduced.

How did we reach this point? As previous speakers said, we reached it because of the manner in which the previous Government - initially the then Minister and now European Commissioner, Phil Hogan, and subsequently Deputy Alan Kelly - went about the creation and establishment of Irish Water. It was an unbelievable series of disasters. What we saw was possibly the worst ever introduction and implementation of a public policy with U-turn after U-turn. First, PPS numbers were to be mandatory, with the claim that there was no way it could be done without them, but, lo and behold, that was changed. Second, a fee structure was put in place which, again, could not be changed, but, lo and behold, a conservation grant was introduced. In itself, the grant was the biggest con job of all times. Regardless of whether somebody paid for water or whether they used 10 litres a week or 110 litres a day, everyone received the same amount under the heading of conservation grant. Like many of my colleagues, I saw old age pensioners who did not have the wherewithal to face another tax wondering how they would pay their water charges. The previous Government gave itself much wriggle room and leeway to change and modify policy to suit the political reality at the time, yet no leeway or concession was given to some elderly people who had failed to apply for the conservation grant owing to their age, or who were not able apply online because they had no family support, or who were afraid to deal with Irish Water in any manner or means. With a deadline set in stone, they missed out on the €100 grant. No leeway was given to them, but there was plenty for the Government as it moved from crisis to crisis when establishing Irish Water.

Irish Water was established on the premise that it would be able to borrow off balance sheet and, accordingly, bring forward a large-scale investment programme in water infrastructure around the country. That was right as a large investment is needed in water infrastructure. However, the Government went about spending €500 million on water meters, which are not used, and over €100 million on consultants to set up Irish Water. In its first year of operation Irish Water lost €22 million. I do not know how losing €22 million could be considered to be good practice in investing in large-scale development, but I suppose it is down to how the original legislation establishing Irish Water was introduced in the Dáil. In that particular week I remember that we on this side of the House were ridiculed for merely questioning the time given to debate the legislation. We were shot down and it was deemed that the debate on the Bill would be guillotined. Less than three hours were given to debate one of the most important Bills to pass through the last Dáil. By virtue of the fact that it went from having a majority of 30 seats to being 30 short, I hope and expect the Government realises that those on the Opposition benches have ideas and an important role to play in the scrutiny of legislation. That explains why this legislation is being debated in the Dáil now.

It is disingenuous when one sees Labour Party Members introducing legislation similar to that against which they actually voted in the previous Seanad. Fianna Fáil brought forward legislation in the Seanad to ensure Irish Water would always remain a public utility. At the time the Labour Party Members of the Seanad voted against it, claiming it was not needed. It is amazing how a person's opinion can change when he or she moves from the Government to the Opposition benches. Just like Deputy Alan Kelly when Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government tried to fool the electorate and failed, I do not believe they will be fooled by the Labour Party’s most recent proposals.

Under the Water Services Act 2007, if there is a problem with or a leak from public sewerage under a public roadway or footpath, it is the responsibility of Irish Water. Before that, it was down to the local authority to deal with it. Whether it was on purpose or an error in the 2007 Act, a problem has emerged with public sewerage in older housing estates. For example, many local authority houses on Green Road, in O’Growney Drive and St. Bridget’s Terrace in Mullingar have been bought out. To keep costs down when such estates were being built, the sewer pipes were not placed along the main road or the back lane. Instead, they were placed right at the back door of the houses. Accordingly, if there is a blockage in the sewer pipes, it is deemed to be the house owner's responsibility, even though it is actually a public sewer. These home owners are being penalised as Irish Water will not correct the problem. This needs to be examined. It is not the house owner's fault that when the houses were constructed, the pipes were not placed along the main road or in a public space.

Again today we heard the European Union's opinion on whether we can have derogation in the case of Irish Water.

Sometimes, when one hears the European Union coming out on cases such as this, it seems like it is meddling in the national affairs of a particular country. For all of the positives which were debated at length in this House only yesterday in the light of Brexit, when we hear the European Union stating it will determine whether we can implement the will of the people through this legislation, we do not have to wonder why some people are fed up with it or why some actually voted in the way they did in the recent referendum in the United Kingdom.

On the whole, this is welcome legislation. As I said, it gives an opportunity to suspend water charges for a period of nine months, during which time we will have an opportunity to consider a funding model that is fair and equitable and that will not place an unnecessary financial burden or hardship on people. Let us remember the way the original legislation was introduced. It was introduced on the basis that a person in receipt of an old age non-contributory pension of €230 a week who was struggling to survive was to pay the exact same annual amount in water charges as someone like me. The Minister may disagree, but that is the case. I am thinking of an old age pensioner living alone in a local authority house who is receiving €230 a week and paying rent, electricity bills and prescription charges. That person simply could not survive. The outgoing Government in its introduction of water charges never once took account of a person's ability to pay or thought of the person who could not afford further charges, who was living hand to mouth and waiting for Friday to arrive every week in order to collect his or her old age pension. This is not made up; it is factual. It is welcome that from 1 July water charges will be suspended.

I wish the commission well in its deliberations and coming forward with proposals that will ensure we can raise the necessary funding to make the investment needed in towns and villages across my constituency and in every other in order that we can see them develop and grow. At the same time, the charges must not be put on the backs of ordinary, decent working people.

7:40 pm

Photo of Eamon ScanlonEamon Scanlon (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about this issue. I am coming at it from a different side in that I am speaking on behalf of those who are being billed twice.

In Sligo and, I am sure, other counties Veolia was given the contract some years ago for the implementation of the water scheme and the collection of charges. At an earlier stage, we contacted it to point out that people were being charged twice, that they were being charged once by Veolia and again by Irish Water. Some months ago, when I contacted Irish Water, it was very helpful and at the time resolved the issues involved. People were to get a refund of what they had paid. However, more recently, when I contacted Irish Water again, the situation had been more difficult and the result often depends on the person to whom I am talking.

The point is that once people are billed by one utility, they should not be billed again. It is wrong that people have to pay twice. When people are with Veolia, they pay €20 per quarter for the meter, or €80 a year, and if they have a second meter, they pay again. For this, they receive 50,000 gallons of water a year and then pay for any water they use above that amount, as many people do. I would like to see this issue sorted out.

What will happen to those who are part of group schemes? They organised themselves as a group and applied for and received grants to provide water schemes. In some cases they had to contribute £4,000 or £5,000 individually. They have been paying for water continuously during the years. What does the Minister propose to do for them? I believe they are being overcharged and it is wrong that they should have to pay when others do not. I ask the Minister to try to resolve the issue.

Sligo County Council has made an application in respect of sewerage schemes. There is a group scheme that takes in Grange, Tubbercurry and Enniscrone, all of which are under severe pressure. The applications in respect of these schemes have been in place for many years and there have been a few false dawns. I ask the Minister to use his good offices to see whether they can be progressed as quickly as possible.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the commentary from colleagues on all sides of the House. I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. This is a very short Bill and there has been little discussion on the technicalities of the legislation. I hope we will have an opportunity to do this on Committee Stage in the coming days when we will go through the Bill line by line to make sure we get it right.

Essentially, the thinking behind the legislation is clear. It is about trying to create a window of opportunity to have a less politicised discussion on how we pay for domestic water services in terms of the supply of clean, safe water, which clearly is not the case in parts of the country. That is evidence, if we needed it, that we need to change the system we use to deliver water. The previous system was operated through the local authorities which were under-funded in many cases. Although there were many good engineers within the local authorities, the reality is we had a very disjointed system, with individual local authorities trying to do their own thing. When we look at the statistics, the results are shocking; some 49% of water leaks through pipes before it reaches its supposed destination, thousands of people are subject to boil water notices for long periods and raw sewage is going into harbours, rivers and lakes.

The House does not need me to make the arguments on the need for an improved water treatment and delivery system for households across Ireland. I hope the discussion in the next nine months will be about how we do this, who pays for it and how it is to be paid for. The one constant in this debate is that everybody accepts that we need to pay for water and that this is not a free resource in terms of its treatment and management. What the debate is about is whether we should pay for it through general taxation, whether there should be a household contribution element for the amount of water used, whether the volumes used should be paid for in full by households or whether some other metric should be used.

I appeal to other parties during this process to contribute to that debate. Within the next couple of days - certainly this week - we will have the announcement of an expert commission. I have tried to ensure a real balance on the commission in terms of legal and technical expertise and knowledge, including an input from group water schemes. This interaction with the commission will certainly be facilitated in the next five months in order that we can come to a set of recommendations on which it will be up to us to decide as the democratically elected representatives of the people.

For some, this will not be an easy process because many people have already committed politically to an outcome, which in some ways is not helpful to the process. Fine Gael has a political policy position on how water should be paid for, as do Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin. No party has a majority in this House anymore; therefore, we are trying to put in place a structure to put some questions and options on the table which make sense, first and foremost, for households in the provision of water, in the belief that the delivery system will work for them and that it will be fair. If there are two neighbours who use dramatically different volumes of water, for whatever reason, is it fair that they effectively pay the same amount for that resource through general taxation? It is not and neither is it fair to ask somebody who cannot afford it to pay for water. There is now such a structure in place.

I thank Sinn Féin for supporting this legislation, even though its position on it is very different from mine. I hope it is an indication that it will buy into the process and try to work with and contribute to it. In nine months time we will have an all-party Oireachtas committee which will bring forward recommendations to the House, regardless of how uncomfortable they may be for some of us. There is a risk for everybody, but probably more so for the Government parties than for anybody else. We will, however, take on board the committee's recommendations and have an honest and informed discussion without the constant political manoeuvring whereby all political parties and none try to outmanoeuvre each other to be more popular on this issue. Real anger and resentment have been encouraged through the water debates that have taken place on the streets and in this House. My job as Minister is to deal with the issue.

As people get to know me, I hope they will get to know that I am someone who wants to listen to other perspectives. I might not agree with them all of the time, but there should be consensus in the House on water as a resource and how we deliver and should pay for it in order that as Governments change there will not be radical changes of policy on the delivery of something as fundamental as water. If we did that in the case of electricity, the country would not be able to function. If we did it in the case of gas, we would have huge difficulties and interruptions in supply and funding models. It is a little like what the Minister, Deputy Simon Harris, is trying to do in the health service because it is a fundamental service for the public. There is no more fundamental provision of a resource into people's homes than the provision of water and, as Minister, I will try to facilitate that process.

I will be in Brussels next week to meet the European Commissioner for the Environment who I know quite well because he is also the marine Commissioner and I was formerly the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I know him well from negotiations on fisheries and he is a very decent and straight individual. I have already spoken to him at length on the telephone. I want to go to Brussels in person to explain what we are trying to do. For an outsider, the resentment, marches, protests and anger seem like a very strange process in the politics of water provision, especially to people in other countries who have been paying domestic water charges for a generation, or certainly for decades. I am not pretending for one minute that it is contrived. The anger many people feel towards water charges is genuine and to try to get acceptance of a new financing model will not be easy in that context. There have been a lot of mistakes made which have led to that anger, but there is also politics being played which has encouraged it. When I talk about trying to take the politics out of water provision, I am not talking about trying to create some cosy consensus with which everybody will be comfortable but rather about having an informed debate to make a decision that can last through various changes of Government, which will undoubtedly happen in the next number of decades. We should have a consistent and sustainable approach to water provision which is consistent with our obligations and commitments, both nationally and internationally. It is something we want to embrace rather than have forced on us by a water framework directive.

The issue of public ownership has been raised repeatedly. There is no privatisation agenda in the Government on water services. If one looks at the legislation that safeguards this, for any future Government to privatise Irish Water, it would have to obtain permission to do so through a plebiscite. It would require a referendum for it to happen. That is the length to which the last Government went to to reassure people that there was no privatisation agenda. The previous model of water delivery whereby local authorities were forced to outsource the building and management of water treatment facilities to private companies was leading to privatisation by stealth. Irish Water is taking back ownership of many of wastewater treatment facilities; it is a reversal of what was happening previously in the context of privatisation. I am open to suggestions others may have to provide further reassurances in maintaining Irish Water as a publicly owned utility and to reassure people that there is no privatisation agenda. Let us look at what we can do in that regard. I have listened to what people have been saying, but it is not as simple as holdindg a referendum on water infrastructure given the complexities around private ownership of much of the water infrastructure in rural Ireland through group water schemes. People are perfectly happy with the current infrastructure which is working quite well and which they are financing. For group water schemes, we are moving to ensure the financial models and supports in place before the introduction of the water conservation grant will be returned to. We have spoken to the National Federation of Group Water Schemes about this and it seems to be very happy with what we are proposing to do. We are also proposing to increase the grant aid available for private wells and their maintenance. There is nothing to fear for group water schemes or those who have been paying for their water for many years.

There are contracts in place to finish phase 1 of the water metering programme and we will see it through. There is a second phase which is more complex in providing meters in apartment complexes and other housing units that are not as easy to access. Decisions will be made in the future in that regard; we are not making any decision on it right now.

I am not going to start holding a stick over people because of their legal views in interpreting the Water Framework Directive. All I am saying is the European Commission's view on it does not come as a surprise to Fine Gael and it should not come as a surprise to anybody else either. Let us wait and see how it assesses the issue. There will be legal expertise in the commission which will look at the issues and listen to the arguments and what people have to say. It will make an independent assessment and recommendations in the five months it will be working on the issue. Let us wait and see what it will state. I am happy to let it do this, but some people seem to be hugely surprised by and contest what the European Commission has been stating on the issue. It should not come as a surprise at all.

This process is about trying to fix some of the failings to which people have been referring repeatedly. I appeal to them to work with us on the issue.

Who knows, in the not too distant future, Fianna Fáil or Sinn Féin may be in government and it will be their responsibility to try to ensure we deliver an improved water provision each year and make sure fewer people will be subject to boil water notices and fewer families will be affected by public health issues that are impacted on by pollution and poor water quality.

When we look at what Irish Water is planning to do in dealing with leaks between now and 2021, its targets are clear. It aims to move from a figure of 49% to 38%. This can only be done over a phased period. All of the leaks cannot be plugged overnight. It is hugely expensive, but Irish Water is committed to continuing that process. Not only that, we will essentially have an observation body which is also being set up as part of the nine-month process and which will report quarterly to the Oireachtas to ensure the targets which are being set in the business plan for Irish Water and on which the regulator is insisting are being met. We will have an independent monitoring body to report to the committee and the Oireachtas to make sure that will be the case. That is part of what we are trying to do in creating an acceptance and an understanding of the challenges Irish Water faces and how it is responding to them on behalf of the State which will continue to own it into the future.

I look forward to hearing what Members will have to say on Committee Stage. I ask Members to try to facilitate the movement of this legislation as quickly as possible. Let us not forget that we are effectively introducing a freeze on water charges from 1 July, in a few days time. By the time the legislation is finalised and enacted, it will effectively be retrospective for a number of days or a week or two. That is fine and there is nothing extraordinary about it. However, the sooner we get it through, the sooner we will provide certainty. It will allow the commission to get on with its work and allow the process to begin to, I hope, resolve some of the issues that have been the source of a lot of frustration for Members opposite. It will allow us to move on from this issue, as I think many of us would like to do, and focus on the many other challenges that the Government and the House have to face.

Question put and declared carried.

8:00 pm

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Unanimous support.

Photo of Eoin Ó BroinEoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All six of us.