Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Tá céad fáilte roimh an Aire agus gabhaim mo leithscéal nach raibh mé anseo fad is a bhí sé ag tabhairt a óráide féin. Tá súil agam gur comhtharlúint é go raibh toscaireacht istigh againn ón tSín nuair atáimid ag caint ar phríobháidiú an chórais uisce. Tá mé cinnte gurb ea agus nach raibh aon uisce faoi thalamh i gceist.

Níl aon dabht ach gur ceist iontach tábhachtach soláthar uisce sa tír, agus go háirid uisce ar ard-chaighdeán. Tá sin rí-thábhachtach ar fud na tíre. Níl aon dabht ach go bhfuil dúshlán an-mhór romhainn in Éirinn maidir le córas inmharthana ard-chaighdeán uisce agus séarachais a chur ar fáil atá in ann seasamh leis na dualgais atá ann i dtaobh an chomhshaoil, agus gur féidir linn íoc as ins an gcomhthéacs eacnamaíochta ina bhfuilimid chomh maith.

Tá Sinn Féin tar éis dul i ngleic leis an díospóireacht seo go cruthaitheach agus go dearfach ó bunaíodh an próiseas comhairleacháin, go háirid ón méid moltaí atá curtha ar aghaidh ag mo chomhghleacaí sa Dáil, an Teachta Brian Stanley, atá tar éis cuid mhaith iarratais agus smaointe a chur chun cinn. Ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh don méid adúirt an Seanadóir Mulcahy níos luaithe. Bhí sé ag rá go bhfuil daoine sa bhFreasúra ag caint ar mholtaí ach nach bhfuil siad ag insin cén chaoi a bhfuiltear chun íoc as na moltaí sin. B'fhéidir go gcuirfinn an Seanadóir chuig taifead na Dála, áit ar chuir mo chomhghleacaí, an Teachta Brian Stanley, moltaí seo againne chun cinn agus costas leo.

Cé go n-aithnímid na dúshláin a bhaineann leis seo, táimid go bunúsach i gcoinne an smaoinimh atá ann go dtabharfaí isteach táillí uisce, go ndéanfaí príobháidiú ar uisce agus ar shéarachas agus go mbeadh an dúblú ar cháin mar thoradh ar an gcóras seo atá á moladh ag an Rialtas le teacht isteach. Táimid ag cur i gcoinne bunú an chomhlacht nua seo, Irish Water, atá molta ag an Rialtas.

There has been much discussion in recent times regarding the volume of water that is lost from the system and how much it costs to provide a good service. These well founded concerns have been used as justification for the erroneous conclusion that there is a need for water charges. That is not the case. On the issue of waste, for example, the real offender is not the ordinary citizen but the water distribution network. The average loss through leakage is at least 36%, and likely worse, and was aggravated in recent years by poor winter weather. In some local authority areas, more than half the water is leaking away, yet capital investment in water was reduced from almost ¤435 million in 2011 to ¤331 million in 2012. This ¤100 million reduction comes on top of a similar sized reduction in 2010, with more cuts planned until the budget is just ¤266 million. If the Government is really concerned about waste, it should sanction the required investment in infrastructure. We are calling for a return at least to the 2011 level of capital funding.

In any case, the evidence shows that metering does not reduce water consumption. According to the UK?s Environment Agency, water consumption in England, which has water metering, is at 158 litres per head per day, while in Dublin a 2008 report showed consumption stood at 148 litres per head per day. All the research shows that good public education can have the same, if not even more, impact on water consumption as metering. We would also support the introduction of water harvesting and dual flush mechanisms as part of future building regulations.

We constantly hear we need to pay for water. This is, of course, a nonsense. We already pay for water through taxation. Accordingly, water charges would be double taxation. Only 52% of commercial water rates are collected, yet we see little discussion of this. It is also clear the money to be spent on water metering would be better spent in other ways.

According to the Irish Academy of Engineering, the cost of meter installation will be at least ¤500 million. It would be far more appropriate to invest the ¤500 million in water conservation rather than meter installation. This would fund conservation for six years and provide badly needed employment. It seems this has nothing to do with the environment but is another attempt to squeeze money out of already hard-pressed ordinary citizens in another flat rate stealth tax. This follows on from the flat rate household charge of ¤100, a 2% VAT increase, an increase in the carbon levy of ¤5 per tonne and increases in transport costs. All this while the Government apparently refuses to take on the elite and the privileged with taxes focused on those most able to pay, as well as tackling excessive pay at the top of the public sector.

We are also concerned at the possibility of privatisation. The Government declares it is committed to Irish Water being a public utility, yet, on the other hand, we see the Government is committed to selling off successful self-financing commercial semi-State companies such as the ESB and Bord Gáis. We will be forgiven for taking that assertion with a bucket of salt.

Sinn Féin is of the view a new national water governance framework should be developed by the Government in partnership with local authorities to better manage water services and delivery. We do not support the establishment of a single water utility. Local authorities are uniquely well positioned to deliver this service and can react with speed and flexibility. It also allows services to mobilise and co-ordinate at times of need. There is also a need for an all-Ireland approach to water provision. With eight river basin districts covering both sides of the Border, a real co-ordination of resources on an all-Ireland basis is necessary.

Sinn Féin is often asked what it would do if it were in government. Our record in the North gives an example of what we would do. Cad atá déanta ag Sinn Féin sa Tionóil?