Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government debate -
Thursday, 14 Jun 2018

Irish Water: Discussion (Resumed)

At the request of the broadcasting and recording services, members, witnesses and those in the Public Gallery are requested to ensure that, for the duration of the meeting, their mobile phones are turned off completely or switched to aeroplane, safe or flight mode, depending on the device. It is not sufficient to place phones in silent mode, particularly as there will still be a level of interference with the broadcasting system.

Item No. 5 is Irish Water's proposed move to a single utility by 2021 and the future delivery of water and sanitation services. On behalf of the committee, I welcome from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, Mr. Liam Berney, Mr. Brendan O'Brien, Mr. Maurice Hearne, Mr. Peter Nolan, Mr. Sean Heading and Mr. Brendan Byrne.

Before we begin, I draw the attention of our guests to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee.

However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I now call on Mr. Berney to make his opening statement.

Mr. Liam Berney

On behalf of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, I thank the committee members for their invitation to participate in this discussion on the Irish Water proposal to move to a single utility by 2021.

In September 2017, the managing director of Irish Water, Mr. Jerry Grant, attended a meeting of the Irish Water consultative group. The group is a forum that was established to deal with the industrial relations issues that arise from reform of the water sector. At this meeting the unions were formally advised that the board of Ervia, which is the parent company of Irish Water, had decided it wished to take full control of the delivery of the public water service and to end the service level agreements, which are currently in place, in 2021, four years before they are due to expire. Mr. Grant also informed the unions that the board of Ervia had advised the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government of its decision. He requested at that meeting that the unions enter into a negotiation to create a national framework that would provide for the implementation of the Irish Water proposal.

Following the Irish Water announcement, the unions sought and held meetings with the Minister, Irish Water and local authority management. The purpose of these meetings was to gauge the level of support for the Irish Water proposal among the other stakeholders in the sector. We also used these meetings to outline our initial concerns about the proposal.

On 15 January 2018, we received correspondence from the Minister, in which he sought to address some of the issues we had raised with him at a meeting. He also requested that we engage in a process of meaningful dialogue with the other stakeholders in the sector. He reiterated that the current arrangements, that is, the service level agreements, for the delivery of public water services would remain in place until an alternative arrangement was agreed. A copy of his correspondence to us is attached as appendix 1 to this statement circulated to members. I do not intend to go through the appendix, but it is there for members' information. On 8 February 2018, we replied to the Minister's letter. A copy of our reply is also attached as an appendix. Again, I will not go into the detail of it but I wish to draw the committee's attention to some of the main points that were made in the letter.

First, we noted the assurance that there would be no unilateral change to the arrangements for the delivery of public water services. On this basis, we were willing to participate in a process of active dialogue with other stakeholders in the sector. We were agreeable, as the Minister requested, to having a discussion on what was being placed before us. However, we insisted that the process of dialogue, if it was to be meaningful, could not have a predetermined outcome. What we mean by this is that the discussion could not simply be about the implementation of the Irish Water proposal. The reason for this is that the Irish Water proposal had emerged without any explanation as to what problem it was seeking to resolve. In an earlier presentation to this committee, Irish Water contended that its proposal would allow it to address structural inefficiencies in the current delivery model that would result in €70 million in savings a year. The structural inefficiencies have never been raised with the unions in any forum, including the Irish Water consultative group, and, therefore, Irish Water is proposing something that seeks to solve a problem we have never been told about.

The unions favour the continuation of the delivery of the public water service through local authorities. The unions are open to considering any proposal, as we always do, to streamline or improve the efficiency of the current system. Since the service level agreements have been in place, there has been a significant reduction in the number of people employed in the water services, and significant efficiencies have been agreed. The unions are prepared to consider other delivery options. However, our attitude to any other model will be guided by the extent to which it is rooted in the public sector, employs public servants, uses direct labour to discharge its functions and is accountable to the democratic structures of the State. Ervia in the past has had, and continues to have, a model of operating whereby most of the work on the network and so on is done by contractors and is outsourced. It is not a direct labour model. We have concerns about this.

It is important to say at this point, so the committee is under no illusion, that we are opposed to the Irish Water proposal to establish a single water utility under the control of Ervia in the way proposed. We have formed the view that the Irish Water proposals are incapable of being implemented, not least because they envisage the forced transfer of union members represented here out of the employment of local authorities and into employment outside the public sector.

We went on in the letter to address the question of the potential privatisation of the water sector in the future. We believe there is broad public support for the holding of a constitutional referendum to prevent the future privatisation of the water system and we note that the Minister has confirmed that he is willing to facilitate the holding of a referendum. We understand that a Bill to give effect to the holding of a referendum is currently under consideration. We urge all political parties and groupings in the Oireachtas to co-operate with the passage of this Bill in order that a referendum can be held as soon as possible. Any proposal to create a single water utility, as envisaged by Ervia, must have regard to the need for a long-term and sustainable system of local government. In recent years, local authorities have relinquished responsibility for the delivery of important public services, and this has not been to the benefit of citizens who rely on these services. The bin service in Dublin is an example of the deterioration of a service when it has left the local authority sphere. We place a high value on an effective system of local government and the delivery of important public services by local authorities.

On 17 May 2018, the Minister wrote to Ms Oonagh Buckley, the director general of the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, requesting the commission to engage with the parties to identify the issues that arise in the context of the Irish Water proposal and to prepare a report for his consideration. This letter is attached at appendix 3 of this submission. We understand that a plenary meeting will take place on Thursday, 5 July 2018. The unions will attend this meeting and engage in the process.

These are the developments that have taken place and this has been the extent of our involvement since the Irish Water proposal. In this short submission we have tried to outline how, as it currently stands, we view the Irish Water and Ervia proposal. My colleagues represent different unions and categories in the sector and they will be happy to address any questions members of the committee might have.

I thank Mr. Berney for his presentation. It is important that the Oireachtas committee is having this debate, both in the session we had with Irish Water and the Department previously and this session with the unions. It is important we make it clear that it is not the business of this committee to get involved in the industrial relations issues and the negotiations that will take place between the unions, and Irish Water and the Government. We are, therefore, coming to this from the point of view of public policy and the impact this proposal may have on a vital public service, the employees in the service and the users of the service.

I will not give a view on the proposal. I am more interested to hear Mr. Berney's responses to a series of questions and perhaps to tease out some of what he said in his opening statement.

The Irish Water proposal is to reduce the number of full-time equivalents working in water services by approximately 1,000 between now and 2021 and to bring that forward.

At a time of increased investment in upgrading the water system through the increased capital programme for Irish Water, significant strains on the system, whether in Skerries in north County Dublin recently or Louth or elsewhere, we would expect more staff to be recruited to the sector. What would be the impact of taking 1,400 full-time equivalents out of the direct delivery of service? What would be the operational impact on current levels of service delivery and future plans for capital improvement and upgrade?

Irish Water claims that the savings to the State from that course of action will be €70 million annually. There was some confusion in the committee on the last occasion when we asked whether that represented a net or gross saving. When we asked the question of the Department, it said that it represented net savings. We asked what happens, for example, in local authorities if there are redeployments, rather than voluntary redundancies, and which body bears the cost of that. We wondered whether it would be financed from existing local authority resources or from another source. The Department then got itself into a kerfuffle and said that it would be a matter for negotiation. The amount that would be saved is unclear. Has Mr. Berney any further information which he can share with us about that?

One of the main concerns is that if there is a transfer of staff from the direct employment by the water providers, a consequent increase in the use of private contractors could follow. Irish Water has clearly indicated that its preference is for directly employed staff for service delivery but that contractors should be used for capital upgrade and improvement work. Is that a concern for the union? What is its view on that matter?

I have an ongoing concern that as the company is restructured, areas of expenditure that traditionally would have been operational expenditure, particularly minor works, repair works and upgrade works, are being shifted across to the capital expenditure side, which is being used to show savings, which are not necessarily savings at all on the operational end. Can any witness respond to that or give his or her view?

Does this proposal have implications for career progression for staff? Does it affect the need for more apprenticeships? How do we ensure that people going into water services will have a clear career progression path?

I share Mr. Berney's view on local authorities. Part of the difficulty in recent years is that more services have been taken away from local authorities, including bin collection and housing delivery. What would be the impact on the functioning of local authorities if these staff and this core activity were taken from them?

What will be the impact on the public? We have been told that this proposal will increase efficiency. It is concerned with removing duplication and increasing productivity. Those arguments were used when student grants were taken away from local authorities and when medical cards were taken away from local health centres. In both of those instances, the opposite of what was intended occurred. There was a long period at the beginning when there was increased confusion, lack of capacity and an inability to deliver the same direct service face to face, but there have also been ongoing problems caused by the increased distance from the public. If one was to take those functions away from the local authorities there might be consequences. In some rural local authorities people know their water services workers. They are part of the local communities and are embedded in the life of those communities. What would be the impact in that instance?

On the flip side, is it Mr. Berney's view that this could provide an opportunity to radically transform the delivery of water services and the structure of the water utility to create a fully non-commercial semi-State entity? Should the committee explore and raise this with the Minister and others? Would there be benefits to that approach?

Almost everyone on the committee shares the belief that there is a need for a referendum. There is a certain frustration, because even though the Oireachtas agreed on Second Stage, without any opposition, in October 2016, to proceed, there has been a long delay. Perhaps Mr. Berney could elaborate on that. Why would a referendum on water be so important for the unions, their members and their users and services? What would that constitutional protection mean in real terms?

Mr. Liam Berney

That was an extensive list of questions. I do not want to be evasive, but we have been asked to comment on the reasoning Irish Water presented for this. It has never presented its reasons to us at all. We have had no discussion with the company about the rationale for the proposal it has made. It is difficult for us to respond to the questions because we have not had direct dialogue with Irish Water. The Irish Water consultative group comes together every couple of months and discusses issues in the sector. The question of a structural change of this nature, including the transfer of staff to Irish Water, was never discussed with us. Discussions were held about a programme called the water industry operating framework, WIOF, where issues such as cross-local authority working and other changes were proposed. Again, the detail of that was never given to us in the industrial relations forum. It is difficult for us to comment, aside from purely speculating on what the benefits would be or on the rationale for the Irish Water proposal. To do so, without an informed view, would probably be quite dangerous.

The question of career progression and apprenticeships is something that we would have to discuss in detail should the Irish Water proposal proceed. However, until such time as we understand the reason for the Irish Water proposal and what it is seeking to address, it is difficult to engage with it. If we were to ask this committee to do anything for us, it would be to encourage Irish Water and the Department to explain to us what the difficulty is with the current system and whether the problems could be addressed within the current framework.

We are concerned about local authorities and the scale of the impact this proposal would have. Local authorities are important institutions within the structure of the State, on which citizens rely. It is an open secret that some of the larger local authorities would exit water services tomorrow if they had the opportunity, and because of their scale, an existential issue does not arise for them. However, for some local authorities they would be faced with such a crisis, and it is deeply worrying. Proper consideration has not been given to that. Alongside any restructuring of the water services sector, it is important that what happens to the local authorities is considered as well.

The Deputy asked whether there is an upside to the proposal. The unions in the sector have complained bitterly for years, without anyone taking any heed, about the lack of investment in the sector. Arising from the creation of Irish Water, there has been a focus on the need for continued capital investment. If structural reform resulted in ring-fenced, guaranteed capital funding to address the infrastructural deficits in the system and to ensure a proper, modern, functioning water system, we should seize that opportunity. We would be supportive of such reform.

On the question of the referendum, we are sceptical about the intention behind the setting up of Irish Water in the first place. My colleagues will talk about it in more detail but believe it was not established to improve the sector but rather to create a vehicle for its future privatisation. It appeared to the whole world as if that was being done. We need to make sure that does not happen. We have become convinced that the best way of doing that is by holding a referendum, which would ask the people if they want to prevent Irish Water from being privatised or if they want the water sector to be privatised in the future.

We believe that is the safest way of doing it. People tell us it is an imperfect model and we should not insert such provisions in the Constitution, but I have not heard any better way of doing it. We support the proposal for a referendum. We are as frustrated as others about the delay in holding a referendum.

When we met the Minister he told he was not opposed to a referendum but wanted to facilitate the referendum on the removal of the eighth amendment in the first instance and to concentrate on that. To some extent, that was a legitimate response. That is the best I can do to answer the Deputy's questions. The lack of detail we have arises from the fact that a presentation on the nature of the proposal has not been made to us.

I thank Mr. Berney. I have some supplementary questions. Leaving aside what Irish Water has or has not proposed, knowing the water services sector as Mr. Berney does, what does he think will be the impact of removing 1,000 full-time equivalent staff by 2021? Do the unions have a view on the future reconfiguration of the utility and Irish Water moving towards becoming a non-commercial semi-State company? Would that be a positive development and, if so, why?

Mr. Liam Berney

We struggle to understand how 1,000 people can be taken out of the system while also delivering the types of reforms that are necessary. Some of the work needed to reform and improve the sector is core to local authority staff and cannot be done by contractors. We struggle with understanding the issue because we have never had an explanation as to the nature of the proposal.

I asked about the idea of Irish Water being a non-commercial semi-State body.

Mr. Liam Berney

To be perfectly honest, as I said in the statement we are prepared to look at different options of delivery in the water sector. There is a single utility in place, namely, Irish Water. It has responsibility for the delivery of the water system and does so through a contracting arrangement it has with local authorities. We can see the basis for a discussion on the development of an improved single utility that would be firmly located in the public sector and have public sector staff who would be insourced. If we are to have that discussion in a meaningful way, we need to understand what problems exist in the system in order that we can bring our members with us. They have been told to move from one place to another without any explanation.

Mr. Brendan O'Brien

The most important question is what a future utility will look like. A major weather event, Storm Emma, resulted in water shortages, rationing and other problems over a number of weeks. The response in Dublin involved Irish Water and the four local authorities deciding on how to address the issue as a matter of urgency to try to ensure it does not happen again. A number of measures had to be taken to rebuild water capacity. As the committee knows, Dublin uses 100% of the water it produces. There are issues with broken and lead pipes. In recent weeks, we sat down with the four local authorities, in conjunction with Irish Water, to decide to fix the water problem in Dublin. This has involved putting in place a plan to fix a range of issues, rebuild capacity and ensure there is resilience in the system because that is absent at the moment.

On what a future setup would look like, what is happening in Dublin provides a very good example of what a publicly provided utility could look like. We have demonstrated that the model could work and be replicated in Munster, Leinster, Connaught, the northern counties and so on. Instead of spending a number of years debating what a single utility looks like, we have shown what a publicly provided single utility would look like in future. In a couple of years' time there will be substantial progress in Dublin where, it is hoped, most, if not all, of the serious infrastructural issues will have been dealt with. We ask the committee to examine the model being implemented in Dublin as a way of addressing the issue. It may be the best way of addressing the issues that have to be dealt with throughout the country.

Reference was made to apprenticeships and traineeships. I remind the committee that under the public service agreement there are commitments on apprenticeships. We have advocated for local authorities to renew their involvement in the uptake of apprenticeships and we are actively pursuing that. We have asked Irish Water to do the same. If it is working with communities, it needs to assist them in that regard. We advocate that the company allocate money from its budget to deliver in that area.

I echo Mr. Berney's question. Transferring jobs from local authorities and making people contractors would be detrimental for communities because good, steady community based jobs would be taken from some areas and moved to other jurisdictions. People would no longer have certainty of a job in their community while rearing their children. They would be rearing children just to export them. Losing these jobs would be extremely damaging.

Mr. Peter Nolan

I will elaborate on some of the points made by my colleagues, specifically on corporate status and the future direction of the utility. It is important to consider from where this proposal came. It did not come from the Government, Oireachtas or Irish Water; it came from Ervia. There is a cultural difference between Irish Water, which tried to root itself in the public service, and the manner in which Ervia operates. From that perspective, we fear that this is the route to privatisation and that fear is grounded. Developments are taking place within Ervia in an attempt to evolve the management structures of Irish Water staff with Ervia staff. The committee needs to pay close attention to that development because it is the route towards privatisation. We believe the service can be run by local authorities, but we are also open to considering any proposal that would totally preserve the delivery of services within the public sector. We are opposed to commercial development of the water service and that message needs to go out loud and clear.

On the question of staff efficiencies, it is difficult to see how capital investment could be sustained with a reduced number of staff. Since we started to engage with Irish Water, we have kept the system running in local authorities and have managed to reduce staffing levels by close to 1,000. We have the capacity. We have shrunk the system as far as it can go, but we have never been found wanting in circumstances where we have been met and engaged and delivered.

The final point I want to address is local government, which is very dear to my union's heart. We predate the foundation of the State as a union founded in local government. We have talked about bins and higher education. The loss of water services will take between 20% and 30% of the income base from local authorities. Some local authorities in the Dublin area, to which Mr. Berney alluded, may withstand such a reduction but I doubt that, notwithstanding what management thinks. Smaller local authorities will be devastated. The funding from Irish Water is used to pay for corporate services, not just operational staff on the ground. This funding is no longer available. Approximately one third of the funding for the services delivered by local authorities will disappear on the day this occurs.

We will continue to engage. The creation of Irish Water occurred in turmoil. The one constant throughout was the willingness of the trade union movement to sit down and deal with problems. We did not get involved in large measure with much of the public debate on the issue.

There is a sense of disappointment that the people who kept the show on the road are now staring down the barrel of the gun. Our people refer to the proposal to transfer staff from local authorities to a new body as "conscription". We understand there is legislative provision to allow for this. Any organisation that tries to set itself up when its workforce is totally opposed to the arrangement is destined for a fall and we believe that, unless there is engagement and we are able to deal with the issues we are outlining this morning, the difficulties we face will increase.

Mr. Maurice Hearne

I represent engineers throughout the local authority sector. For generations, engineers have been responsible for the design, building, maintenance and operation of water services within the State. They have a deep sense of and a deep commitment to public service and in many cases engineers do what their fathers and grandfathers did before them. Their reaction in 2012, when we first engaged on the establishment of Irish Water, was one of conditional optimism because at that time we had been struggling with a legacy of chronic underinvestment in the sector. General operatives, plumbers and other staff were also expected to provide and maintain a service on a shoestring and chickens were coming home to roost all over the place. We saw that with the outbreaks of cryptosporidium and water outages in different parts of the country. Privately, engineers were worrying deeply about what would happen if we had an outage in the Vartry reservoir, where there is no backup supply and there would be perhaps hundreds of thousands of people without water. The staff have a deep commitment to providing services to their communities. The staff belong to the communities - they are not some contractor brought in from some other part of the country to carry out work. They are local staff and they have a commitment to and vested interest in ensuring the service is provided to the best standard.

During 2012, 2013 and 2014 we became increasingly concerned with the way the proposal to establish Irish Water was implemented. It was done without any consultation with unions or staff who provide the service. We were increasingly concerned that the intention was to gather everything together in one organisation in order that it could be privatised in the medium term. In 2012 we were in the middle of the biggest fiscal crisis in the history of the State and this was not an unreasonable view to take.

Our members are in favour of the service being retained in the public sector and, indeed, in the local authority sector. They are concerned that the impact it will have on local authorities will be substantial, following on from the privatisation of the bin service. There is also a concern that moving the water service from local authorities removes it from public scrutiny and accountability. We want to ensure that what has been built over generations is not only maintained but restored and expanded to provide the best possible services to our citizens. There are issues such as the retention of local knowledge of general operatives, plumbers and engineers, all of whom have an intimate knowledge of the local water services structure and infrastructure.

Another point that has been repeatedly made to me over the years concerns ethos.

I am sorry but if Mr. Hearne does not mind, I will bring in other members to ask questions. He may contribute again later.

I welcome the ICTU and its 18 members. As long as I have been in the Houses I have never seen so many people from one group. I acknowledge their deep commitment to public service. I was first elected to a local authority in 1999 when I became a member of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council so I know about and value the knowledge to which Mr. Hearne refers. He spoke about the commitment of engineers and their local knowledge, of which there is an awful lot. While much of it is not documented, there is a history there. A man could tell me where a repair was carried out ten years ago and point to a few skeletons in the cupboard. One cannot buy that sort of knowledge. I worked with ICTU members and I do not like anything that whiffs of a forced transfer of anyone's terms of employment without negotiation but I recognise that it can happen. If there is a logic for something to happen, it must be done through meaningful industrial relations, human resources procedures and negotiation.

It appears from what witnesses are saying, and I have read something similar, that much of this seems to have been hatched out and planned without them being fully aware of it. It also appears that local authority staff currently working for Irish Water may be subsumed into Ervia, although I understand some have returned to Irish Water. I am concerned about the speeding up of the process of terminating service level agreements. I was happy to hear the point about apprenticeships and I believe local authorities are best placed to organise them.

I do not like dealing with personalities but I have always found Gerry Grattan to be exceptionally helpful, both when I was a councillor and when he was here, which he has been on a number of occasions. There is a synergy now and I hear from engineers, management and local elected members that the process has bedded down, though it has taken a long time. It is key that it remains within the local authority. I note that witnesses have said they are happy to negotiate and come up with better options. Maybe there are better ways of doing things, even within their own structures.

I congratulate ICTU on producing a report that is concise, focused and to the point. I will try to be helpful without criticising ICTU. It should engage more with local councillors and get political. Unions were political years ago and, without passing judgment, I note that no Member of the Labour Party is here, although some will be following proceedings on the monitors. The unions were great at mobilising and their members served as community activists working on behalf of citizens. That role has become a little lost along the way and people are looking to the trade unions to assume it again. With local elections scheduled for May 2019, trade union representatives should start engaging with politicians and making their case. They are making their case here but I suggest they engage in more regular communication.

The first section of the report contains nine bullet points, which refer to active dialogue. It is important to keep this to the fore. It should not be a case of "my way or the highway" and we cannot have a predetermined outcome in meaningful negotiations.

Mr. Berney made that point really well, and I agree.

He also stated "The unions favour the continuation of the delivery of the public water service through local authorities". I agree with that but it needs to be reformed. It has not worked as well as it should. There need to be greater efficiencies. Maybe it could be done in a more regionally structured way. There has to be a better way, because the current system has not altogether worked and there were huge issues around delivery. However, I hear what the witnesses are saying and I think there is a need for that. If it is kept open and we talk about streamlining and professionalising it and getting a slicker operation, that is the way forward.

Mr. Berney continued by stating "The unions are open to considering any proposal ... to streamline or improve the efficiency of the current system." I think that is to be welcomed. They are also open to looking at other models, which may be available. I do not know what is best practice right across Europe but other models may exist there. As for the Irish Water proposals to establish a single water utility, I see the need to have a centralised policy and a vision, a master plan for the whole thing, but I also see the importance of ensuring that delivery can be rolled out and retained in local authorities. I am very supportive of that.

As for the proposed constitutional referendum, yes I am completely opposed to the total privatisation of Irish Water. A lot of politicians here are or at least they say they are and that is important. I will give a commitment to raise in Seanad Éireann this very day where we are regarding the Bill, whether the Minister is serious about bringing it forward and what the story is? I will check that out.

I am sympathetic. I am committed and am happy to meet the unions at some other stage as well. However, I encourage the witnesses to engage with all of the 950 sitting county councillors around the country. They are all part of networks with people in other political parties and ICTU will find many great allies there. I think it will lighten the unions' load and I wish them well with their work.

I apologise for being late. I have special knowledge of this area, being the wonderful Minister of State who brought in the damned legislation in the first place and lost my job as a result. Thankfully I kept my seat so that people realised what I was saying was the truth all along. I recognise a lot of the issues here. There are areas where I agree with the representations and areas where I disagree. That is fair enough. I absolutely agree on the single most important point made, which is that if Irish Water is to be set up, it should be absolutely on its own grounds. It should not be involved with Ervia or any other organisation.

I attended a meeting attended by a number of Ministers of the day and senior executives of local government, Irish Water and Ervia. I very strongly made the point that I was totally opposed to Ervia being involved in any make, shape or form and I remain so. If Irish Water is to have a future, which I believe it should, it must be as an independent stand-alone organisation, separate in every way from any other organisation. I agree and concur with the views of the Minister and indeed everybody here who has spoken. There should be a referendum on the ownership of Irish Water to the effect that the only shareholder can be the State. I will absolutely support that.

When we were setting it up, a key point was the concept that nobody would have to change his or her job. If people worked on water infrastructure for a local authority, they would have an option to move into another part of the local authority if they wished. There was no blunderbuss or gun to the head forcing them to go to Irish Water. However, engineers and other workers had an option to join Irish Water if they wished. A lot of them did so. I know lots of them. They have a career with which they are happy. However, if someone was not happy with it, the other option was to stay with his or her local authority. If there was work such people could do or wanted to do, there would be a place for them for the rest of their days. However, there was never any question of involuntary movement of people from employment at a local authority to anywhere else. I would be absolutely opposed to that and the unions are absolutely right to remain firm on that point.

At the time, our vision of Irish Water was that it would generate new synergies. Dublin was mentioned but Dublin is a stand-alone organisation that basically has the capacity to run on its own because it is such a big city. However, problems arise in smaller counties with disparate water supplies. I think County Kerry has 30 or 40 separate water supplies, as opposed to the main line that can be used in places like County Kildare. There are huge advantages for poorer counties where a lot of water is being wasted and which did not have the necessary investment as such capital investment was not available to the local government. Roscommon County Council, for instance, did not have the money to repair the pipes through which it was losing 60% of its water. It was a joke and was not sustainable. The amount water that was being lost throughout the country was entirely unacceptable.

Regarding the question of scale of regional development, I note the comments made by the witnesses. The unions recognise that a regional operation would have synergies, and would improve services for people in areas that would not otherwise have the capacity to have proper safe and potable water. I do not have the map in front of me, but I understand that one of the problems encountered in Kerry was that a whole new line through the centre of the county was needed. The council just could not do it but Irish Water could. There are lots of fantastic things Irish Water can do and is doing.

I live in County Louth, where we have had significant interruptions of supply at Staleen. The last interruption in supply was a couple of weeks ago. I went out at 7 a.m. to find that the workers had been working all night. They went in and worked under floodlights. They gave every single moment they could at no notice at all. They went straight out, and there were at least 15 or 20 of them when I was there. I want to put on record that the commitment of the workers to public service is second to none. It was absolutely fantastic and we do not want to lose that either. What the unions are bringing to the table is the experience, the commitment, the workforce, the skills and the corporate knowledge. They are all good things that must be integrated into the new organisation called Irish Water.

One point made is that it must be a public utility. The referendum will deal with that. There must be no mandatory changing of position from local government to anywhere else. I respect the engineers very much as well. I would use the word "idealism", a word we do not often hear. Many of the professionals and ordinary workers in Irish Water are totally committed. They have an awful lot to offer and we must not lose that. That is where I stand on this debate.

Reading the correspondence, I note that negotiations are ongoing and obviously, they will continue. There should be no forced change but I agree with the witnesses absolutely and will campaign with them on the Ervia issue because that is critical. We want a complete break there. Ultimately, however, I think that the net benefit of Irish Water completely outweighs the old way pursued by the county councils. It just was not working and was not cost-effective. The cost of a cubic metre of water in Kildare was half the cost in Wicklow. In other words, a business using water commercially in County Kildare as opposed to County Wicklow was paying twice the unit cost. It was not sustainable. We now have a uniform cost all over the country. That is very good for business and for inward investment.

I take the points made about the problem with the Vartry reservoir. The fact is that could happen today or it could happen tomorrow. It has not happened for more than 100 years but if and when it does, it will be absolutely catastrophic. The fissures are there in the rock and I have seen them myself. There is no alternative water supply and Dublin will have no water. That is why it is so important to proceed with the alternative supply to the greater Dublin area. Insofar as I can, I will be very much putting my voice behind what the witnesses are saying.

One other point is that one of the assessments made at the time examined the age profile of the workforce. I expect there to be significant voluntary - I stress voluntary - redundancies for people who might wish to take that up and who are probably over 55 or something like that. I did not see the data but perhaps the witnesses have. Given what is going on - I am not familiar with the nuts and bolts - it might be helpful if there was a significant voluntary package for people. At the time, we spoke about that option in principle.

As a person who pays commercial water charges in Wicklow, I can confirm there is still no uniformity of commercial water charges across the country.

I should be in that job because there would be if I was.

Wicklow residents still pay the most for water in this country.

That is the case even though the water in Wicklow is the best.

Mr. Liam Berney

Without commenting on the last matter-----

Mr. Liam Berney

-----nobody is here to criticise Irish Water. I am the person who referred to Mr. Jerry Grant. In fairness to him, he has always been open to having discussions with the unions.

On what Deputy O'Dowd has said about our opposition to what we call the forced conscription from the local authorities, the problem is that the legislation he mentioned earlier in his contribution provides for that.

Where is that provision in the legislation?

Mr. Liam Berney

The legislation states that people can be designated to be transferred to Irish Water.

Mr. Peter Nolan

It is in the 2013 Act.

Mr. Liam Berney

I do not watch Oireachtas television very often but I remember watching the passage of the legislation as it moved through the Oireachtas. It was an appalling vista to watch the then Government guillotine every-----

No, Mr. Berney is wrong.

Mr. Liam Berney

I watched the debate so I know there was no debate.

Mr. Berney is wrong.

Mr. Liam Berney

There was no debate.

Mr. Berney is wrong. There was no guillotine.

I will allow Deputy O'Dowd back into the debate after Mr. Berney's finishes making his remarks.

I thank the Vice Chairman.

Mr. Liam Berney

In reality, the legislation was pushed through the Oireachtas. I watched the debate on that awful afternoon and the provision was an affront to democracy. The only reason the issue of conscription arose is because the legislation provided for it.

I agree with Deputy O'Dowd's point on the need for a central vision and so on. I will provide a copy of our submission to the clerk to the Oireachtas joint committee for distribution to its members. In 2012, we gave a submission to the public consultation process on the creation of Irish Water and made that very point. If some of the advice that we provided to the public consultation process in 2012, which was based on our experience of delivering water service, had been taken into account, we would not have been in the mess in which we found ourselves subsequently. Of course, our view was not taken into account.

The final question was on a voluntary severance package and measures like that. Deputy Ó Broin is right in that given what is envisaged in terms of the expansion and development of the service, the investment in capital infrastructure and the need for a range of things, we cannot see how the workforce can be reduced. A voluntary severance programme would be all very well but it would not obviate the need to increase the workforce to backfill the number of people who have left. The workforce is probably at the point where it is barely able to carry out the service that is required. If we are to continue expanding the service to correct the infrastructure etc., at this point we do not see how a voluntary severance package would be appropriate.

Sorry, Deputy. I want to bring in Mr. Brendan Byrne, Mr. Brendan O'Brien and Mr. Sean Heading, in that order. I would appreciate the witnesses giving sharp and brief replies.

Mr. Brendan Byrne

I will be brief. I thank members for their verbal assurance that they support our call for a referendum. We need to move on that matter. The political parties need to stand up and be counted at this stage. They have all given verbal support and we still are waiting for the referendum to be put before the people. Whether it is a political party or Independent Members, in order for them to show they take our members and the public seriously, this matter needs to be acted on and put to the people. While enough Deputies, Senators and others have given verbal support, we need this matter to be acted on. I ask the Vice Chairman to convey our view to the Minister and call on him to put the referendum to the people as soon as possible.

Mr. Brendan O'Brien

A question has been asked about efficiencies and inefficiencies. Without going into too much detail or being critical, our members have told us that Irish Water has unnecessarily spent money. For example, Irish Water has replaced equipment that works but yet has not replaced equipment that should be replaced. Such matters can be addressed through direct discussions that therefore would improve efficiencies. I agree with Mr. Berney that there is no issue with the amount of staff. If anything, we believe Irish Water is understaffed, which is a matter that needs to be addressed.

As for efficiencies, while I could go into more detail about that subject, there is scope for discussion on where Irish Water's resources could be better spent elsewhere. We would welcome a conversation on that matter.

I wish to echo the point that Mr. Berney made about providing voluntary redundancy packages. The initiative would act like a red flag to a bull and would antagonise our members. As has been said, our members have dedicated their lives to providing services through the water service. A voluntary redundancy package for employees would send a completely wrong message to our members as to how the Government is positioning itself on the future of Irish Water. A redundancy package would be viewed as writing our people out of the script. Our members have conveyed to us that they would prefer this question to be settled over the coming period to everybody's satisfaction, and sooner rather than later.

What does Mr. O'Brien mean by that?

Mr. Brendan O'Brien

I refer to the perceived constant threat to people's jobs, which is a subject we have touched on here. Deputy O'Dowd has mentioned the intrinsic importance of these jobs to the people who live in rural counties and to their communities. It is perceived that the future of those jobs and communities are under threat. He mentioned County Louth and so on. Our members have asked whether they still will be working in this area in five or ten years' time. The constant threat to their job security is hugely damaging. Our point is that this issue must be resolved and preferably sooner rather than later.

I welcome some of the Deputy's comments about the conscription issue. It was reassuring to hear that he opposes conscription. His comments will go some way to alleviate people's worries but the fundamental question about job security in the water services must be addressed. Our members believe that is best served through the local authorities, as has been outlined.

In terms of engagement down the road, a voluntary redundancy package would be the worst thing that could be put on the table.

Will the Vice Chairman allow me to reply to Mr. O'Brien?

I suggest that Mr. Heading comments first.

Mr. Sean Heading

I do not propose to repeat what my colleagues have said. Clearly, our presence here shows we are willing to have meaningful dialogue and engagement. I reiterate that we want the referendum to take place as quickly as possible.

I represent the Connect Trade Union and we are particularly interested in the re-introduction of apprenticeships into the public service. The area has been sadly lacking in the past number of years.

I agree with my colleagues when they questioned where the 1,000 whole-time equivalent jobs are going to go. If our experience of contractors is anything to go by, then the initiative could cause quite a bit of difficulty for us. We could never willingly agree, in any shape or form, to the replacement of whole-time equivalents with contractors. Recently we have experienced considerable difficulties with contractors over employment standards, terms and conditions and, in particular, their failure and unwillingness to engage with the dispute resolution machinery that was set up by the State.

I have read the note supplied by ICTU and I note ICTU accepts that the Minister has given an assurance to the unions. Mr. Berney referred to the "assurance that there would be no unilateral change to the arrangements for the delivery of public water services". That statement concedes the point. In other words, if the unions do not agree, then there will be no change.

Is that the right or wrong way to read that sentence?

Mr. Liam Berney

The Minister said that he wants us to engage in negotiations around the Ervia-Irish Water proposal. He has stated that if we can reach an agreement, that is well and good but that there will be no unilateral change until a position has been agreed. That said, the service level agreements are due to conclude and we must be certain that we have arrangements that will sustain into the future.

My understanding of that is what the unions are saying has been listened to and the Minister agrees with them. I am just giving my opinion. I do not wish to argue with Mr. Berney. I have read what the Minister said and what Mr. Berney said, which was on that basis, "we were willing to participate in a process of active dialogue". That is fine. I still profoundly disagree with the witnesses about voluntary packages. When a new utility is set up and there are new synergies and changes, such packages may be welcomed by some people and not welcomed by others but it is up to the individual to decide. I know of many industries where people want and would welcome such an option but it is not forced on them. Nobody has to take it but in many cases, it can meet the needs people can have at a particular time. I am not talking about Mr. Berney's business, necessarily.

Mr. Liam Berney

I am making a different point. The unions have negotiated voluntary severance packages in many places, in the private and public sector. However, the point I am making is that the requirements of the service mean that were a voluntary severance package put in place tomorrow, it would be meaningless because one still has to replace the staff.

I understand what Mr. Berney is saying. If, say, John has to move position A, Jack will come in but not from the same company. Is that the point?

Mr. Liam Berney

No. If the local authorities decided tomorrow to reduce the staff by 1,000 through a voluntary severance package and 1,000 people decided to leave, they would have to replace them because of the exigencies of the service.

The point I wanted to make was that Irish Water offers great opportunities to people in apprenticeship, for people in engineering and it helps people to get new skills. It is a much better career structure to work for a nationwide company than for a small county council that serves 30,000 or 40,000 people. That is one of the great attractions for Irish Water.

I want to intervene here because I am very conscious of the time since we have to move to the second section. Deputy Barry has just arrived and I wish to let him in.

If I may finish, I will not take a minute. I thank the witnesses for their presentation and if I can help in any way, I would be happy to do so. I thank the Vice Chairman for his indulgence.

I apologise to the witnesses for my lateness, I was delayed on the picket line at Lloyds Pharmacy in Stoneybatter.

As the Vice Chairman has asked me to be brief, I will ask one question. It relates to the question of a referendum, which featured strongly in the correspondence back and forth between the ICTU and the Minister. ICTU supports a referendum to keep water publicly owned, as do I. Is it a condition for ICTU that there be a referendum in order to support a stand-alone company? I see real dangers in a stand-alone company, as it would be easier to privatise than it would to privatise services in 31 local authorities. The question of a referendum is key. In his correspondence, the Minister indicated he was favourable towards a referendum but I can say, from what I see in this House, that the large parties have no intention of facilitating a referendum. They will offer words and hints but they block any serious attempt to push it forward. Is the holding of a referendum a condition of ICTU supporting a stand-alone company or does it see it as two separate issues?

Mr. Liam Berney

The 2015 biennial delegate conference of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions passed a motion calling for a referendum. That was before this proposal ever emerged. In the view of ICTU, there is no link between one and the other. We believe the question of securing public water in public ownership through a constitutional referendum should happen regardless of other plans in any other area. We discussed this earlier and to repeat what the Minister has told us on the holding of a referendum, he said he was happy to facilitate the holding of a referendum but he wished to facilitate a referendum on the removal of the eighth amendment from the Constitution in the first instance. Now that has been done, our view is nothing prevents a speedy passage through the Oireachtas of the legislation required to hold a referendum. Our view is that a referendum could be facilitated this calendar year.

I also support a referendum without strings and that it should be held as soon as possible. ICTU received one answer from the Minister and I would be very interested to see whether the Taoiseach would give the same answer. At any time I have heard him speak on the issue, he has not been seeking to hold a referendum on this issue any time soon. I am asking the question the other way around. It is not whether ICTU sees it as a stand-alone issue but whether it is prepared to give the green light for the stand-alone utility before it gets a crystal-clear guarantee about the referendum.

Mr. Liam Berney

We believe we have a commitment from Government to hold a referendum. According to the Government, the reason it has not taken place until now is because it wanted to facilitate holding a referendum on the eighth amendment. We believe that now it is out of the way, legislation on a referendum should pass through the Oireachtas immediately.

Mr. Liam Berney

We are not the Parliament. The holding of the referendum is in the hands of people who are in the Parliament.

However, support for a stand-alone utility is in the hands of the ICTU.

Mr. Liam Berney

That is not necessarily the case. There is a stand-alone utility now. It is called Irish Water and is under the control of Ervia. The water service is provided through local authorities-----

Mr. Liam Berney

Yes. If one looks at the agreement we have with the State, the Department and the employers on that transformation of the water service, it refers to an enduring relationship between the local authorities and Irish Water in the continuation of service level agreements beyond 2024. I understand the point Deputy Barry is making and why he is making it. Our view on the question of a referendum, however, was developed prior to the proposal that we are discussing today on the Ervia proposal to take full control of the water services. Now that the referendum on the eighth amendment is out of the way, we will press for the immediate holding of a referendum on water ownership, which I believe can be done in the current calendar year.

We must finish there. I have given some latitude. I thank the witnesses for attending today and engaging with the committee.

Sitting suspended at 10.59 a.m. and resumed at 11.06 a.m.
Top
Share