Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

She was very articulate as well. I was here for the Minister of State's speech and I heard what he said although I had to leave for a little while. I was most surprised when I read of the Minister's dealings relating to water meters with the private company Siemens. Siemens is one of the world's largest companies and employs cutting edge technology. It was involved in building the Shannon hydroelectric scheme in 1926. Currently, it employs approximately 370,000 people worldwide. In 2010 Siemens offered to pay the ¤800 million-plus cost of installing meters in 1.3 million Irish homes but the Minister did not pursue this option when he took over the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. Siemens proposed funding the fitting of water meters through an investment to be paid back through savings made in the multi-billion dollar cost of providing water services once the meters were installed. According to an article from the Sunday Independent:

Instead the National Pensions Reserve Fund will be raided for ¤450m to pay some of the bill. The loan from its coffers will have to be paid back with interest at commercial rates, Mr Hogan has admitted, which would be at least ¤350m.

I do not understand why we insisted on spending that money and raiding the pension fund instead of accepting the Siemens offer.

Why not take the example of Scottish Water in terms of setting up a new company? Has the Minister any plan to liaise with companies such as Scottish Water? I agree it does not make sense that the 34 local authorities have different water management systems to provide water for more than 4 million people but can we not learn from a success story? Scottish Water is in public ownership. It has been a substantial success story in Scotland. It has managed the infrastructure well and it has reduced water rates for businesses and consumers. It provided the North with water during the flooding there last year. Scotland has the lowest average household charge in the United Kingdom, costing £52 less than the charges in England and Wales.

A newly launched business, Scottish Water International Business Development, has won contracts in Canada, the Middle East and Europe and is building Scottish Water's reputation worldwide. I understand it is a private company. Another interesting point about Scottish Water is its considerable involvement with clean energy. Scottish Water believes the current separation of water for use in power generation and for other purposes is unhelpful and creates an economic vulnerability. The Scots are pushing forward with hydropower. They maintain that it is not impossible for new reservoirs to be built for hydropower since all modern stations use the pumped return system and this could be designed and enabled to feed the water supplies.

Will the Minister also examine the way the Welsh Water is run? It is owned by Glas Cymru, a single-purpose company with no shareholders run solely for the benefit of its customers. The Glas Cymru business model aims to reduce Welsh Water's asset financing costs, the water industry's largest single cost. Under Glas Cymru's ownership Welsh Water's assets and capital investments are financed by bonds and its retained financial surpluses. The membership of the company totals 70 individuals who are unpaid and whose duty is to promote the good running of the company in the best interests of the customers. How can the Welsh be so successful with unpaid members? The Welsh are doing it one way and the Scots are doing it another way.

Do we really believe we should make this a public company? Could we not consider making it a private company or find some way to do that? I am concerned about the short consultation process over Irish Water. Gaps in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on Irish Water have been highlighted. For example, the report stated that for the public utility model a high-level assessment was undertaken in respect of what the financial position of the business might be and, in particular, the likely funding requirements based upon several assumptions made and in view of various sensitivities. Given the commercially sensitive nature of aspects of this assessment some of the specific assumptions and the detailed findings were redacted from that section of the report. Why can the public not know these facts before the legislation goes through?

If it is to be a State-owned company, why is it commercially sensitive? If there is to be just one company, the Minister needs to furnish the public and the Members of the Oireachtas with much more detailed facts on the costings involved. We need to know more about the meters and the charges before any decision is made. The businesses and private individuals who will be paying these charges to the Government have the right to know these facts. I could say much more on this issue. I realise that the time available to me is limited. I appreciate that the Minister of State put his heart and soul into the explanation he gave the House today, and I accept that this is not solely his baby; however, I believe there are questions to be answered. I would love to know whether we looked at Scottish Water or at Welsh Water. Did we consider a private company, which was the first point I made? I welcome the chance to have this debate. It has been very useful. I found the Minister of State's words very interesting, but I am concerned that we have not given nearly enough thought to what we are doing.