Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I wish to make a few important points by way of clarification. I welcome the comments made by all Senators. Senator Fidelma Healy Eames has said the first fix is free. In other words, if there is a leak on the customer’s side, it will be fixed for free.

On the question posed by Senator Sean D. Barrett, the problem is that the leak is not necessarily in one’s house, it might be under it or from the pipe underground and not visible. The figure nationally is that approximately 42% of all water is unaccounted for; in other words, it never goes for human consumption. Nobody drinks it or uses it because it never gets to the tap. Members from rural areas will know best of all that if there is metering of water, less water will be used. There is clear evidence in that regard from this country and other places worldwide. First, following the installation of the meter, one will find out the location of the leak. I can supply the Senator with data that show significant wastage or unaccounted for water on the customer side. Depending on the age of the infrastructure – much of it is Victorian – wastage can amount to 30% or 40% on the customer side. That is backed up by evidence from other jurisdictions also.

The leaks are not in one’s house. A burst pipe on the road is the easiest leak to fix because everyone sees it. The vast majority of leaks are much smaller and more pernickety. I am aware of someone who had a significant leak under the house for more than 30 years. The foundations had practically been washed away and they never knew it. The leak was slow but continuous. The benefit of metering and dealing with unaccounted for water is positive. The other evidence is very clear. There is a group water scheme in Ballycroy, County Mayo. When meters were put in place, the savings in water use amounted to 60% to 70%. Metering has a significant impact in reducing the wastage of water.

Senator Sean D. Barrett brought some figures to the attention of the House. Let us deal with the facts as we know them. Everyone agrees that the cost of providing water is €1.2 billion. If €200 million comes in from the commercial sector, the State must find €1 billion. That does not mean that the figure of €1 billion is passed on to the householder. A key issue is the Government’s subvention, namely, what the Government will allocate to fund water services. Last year it was between €240 million and €250 million. The level of State subvention is important. Irish Water has the capacity to borrow money. In other words, it could borrow money for infrastructural projects. It would seek to borrow X amount of money and Y would be the return on the income. It is wrong to say the cost of €1 billion will fall on the householder because it definitely will not. One will have the borrowings of the company and the capital investment by the State.

To say that everybody should pay the same is patently wrong because a 90 year old living alone should not have to pay the same as a neighbour with several family members at home. People should pay as they go and the constructive way to deal with this is for people to change the way they use water. This is where the argument must go. The question of conservation has been missing from this debate tonight. We must future-proof the water resources in this State. We must ensure that Dublin has sufficient water to support industry in the region. Supply in Dublin will match demand by 2020, which means that if we do not augment the water supply in the greater Dublin area we will not be able to sustain employment and ensure high water quality in the region.

Conservation at household level includes the use of dual-flush cisterns, capturing rainwater and so forth. There is an awful lot people can do to reduce costs. The water that is pumped into houses is not the only water available for use. There are significant ways for people to reduce their water use at home. In Ireland the average person uses approximately 145 litres of water per day, which is the equivalent of two full bath-loads of water and way more than what is needed. We should be able to get that usage down. People will be able to control their bills by reducing their water consumption, which makes environmental sense.

It was suggested that a civil water bill is not acceptable. Either people pay for their water or they do not. If they choose not to pay and there is no way of getting the money from them, what do we do - sit at home, smoke a fag and say that is terrible? No, we go after people who can afford to pay but will not pay. It is a very quick process and from what I saw in England, it is very effective. I do not have a problem with that. The water company will not have to go to court. The bill will be put against a person's income and there is no big deal involved. We must change the debate, which in this forum has been too negative. We must broaden the scope of the debate and open it out into a discussion about the future of our country. We are a water-rich country and have great potential to attract water-intensive industries here. Parts of the United Kingdom suffer from drought a lot of the time. We have great potential to attract investment and create new jobs in agriculture and the food industry as well as in the technology and pharmaceutical industries, but we can only do that if we have a modern, state-of-the-art water infrastructure, and that is what this is all about.

On the question of information, we need a much more sustained public awareness campaign to get the message across to people about water use, conservation and other related issues. That will enable people to think about the broader issues and to have a vision for the future of our country. I hope that answers most of the questions raised.