Water Services (No. 2) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 20
Question again proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."
When we reported progress I was speaking on this section.
I was addressing the issue of the directions of the Minister when I ran out of time. The Bill reads in section 20:
(1) The Minister may give a direction in writing to Irish Water, in relation to the performance by Irish Water of its functions under this Act, requiring it to comply with such policies of the Government as are specified in the direction.
(2) The Minister may, by direction in writing, amend or revoke a direction under this section (including a direction under this subsection).
(3) The Minister shall not give a direction under this section without first consulting the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.
I propose that those consultations should involve the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority. The Bill reads at section 20(4), "Irish Water shall comply with a direction given to it under this section", which is the matter at stake.
The Commission for Energy Regulation received directions from the then Minister, Mr. Noel Dempsey, which proved rather damaging to the sector. Economic regulation seeks to impose the same sorts of disciplines on a firm to manage its costs that a firm subject to competition might face. The reason we have regulatory bodies is that the consumer is without power, typically, and the producer can be extremely powerful, so to have a regulator is an attempt to redress the balance. If the Minister intervenes, that distorts that balance. I will come to a more substantive legal point presently. A particularly disadvantageous case which illustrates the economic point is the direction given on 27 October 2009 to the aviation regulator by the then Minister, Mr. Dempsey, which required an increase in the charge at airports by 41% and up to 50% for check-in desks. At that time, late 2009, we had lost 4 million passengers and we have lost another 4 million in the period since.
Ministers do not have all the wisdom. The Government is only now recovering from that draconian decision following the abolition of the travel tax. If a Minister gives a direction that turns out to be at variance with the interests of the consumer and the general economic interest, it can have dire consequences. Water is even more important than airports because it affects every person in the country. We cannot live without it, as the Minister said. We cannot have a regulator who can be told to do things by the Minister. We have a bad track record in this regard, an example of which is the fact, as the Minister, Deputy Noonan, told us recently, the health insurance charge has gone up by 86% in the past four years although there is a regulator for that sector as well.
I am unhappy with the idea that Ministers can give orders to the regulator. The regulator is a referee who is supposed to protect relatively powerless customers and it is wrong for a Minister to have the power, for example, to tell the referee to award two penalties to one team rather than the other. This is supposed to be a quasi-judicial function. I am unhappy about the economics of it.
One of the great fortunes I have is that, with 64 academic departments in TCD, I have access to great knowledge. My legal colleagues at TCD would be unhappy the Minister has that power to intervene in a quasi-judicial situation. They cite the Sinn Féin funds decision of the Supreme Court in 1950 which disallowed an attempt by the then Government to interfere in funds which Sinn Féin had held since the 1920s. That is only the side issue, however. The point at the very end of the judgment was as follows:
The effect of that article and of Arts. 34 to 37, inclusive, is to vest in the Courts the exclusive right to determine judiciable controversies between citizens or between a citizen or citizens, as the case may be, and the State. In bringing these proceedings the plaintiffs were exercising a constitutional right and they were, and are, entitled to have the matter in dispute determined by the judicial organ of the State. The substantial effect of the Act [which sought to gain control of the Sinn Féin funds] is that the dispute is determined by the Oireachtas and the Court is required and directed by the Oireachtas to dismiss the plaintiffs claim without any hearing and without forming any opinion as to the rights of the respective parties to the dispute. In our opinion this is clearly repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution, as being an unwarrantable interference by the Oireachtas with the operations of the Courts in a purely judicial domain.
If I have a dispute about the price of water, the fact the Minister can issue a direction with which the regulator is compelled under section 4 to comply infringes what was stated in the Sinn Féin funds case, namely, that disputes cannot be resolved by one person telling the Oireachtas what we should do, and that the Minister is always right. I do not know if the courts would accept the right to give those directives. That is why I raise the point. I do so on the basis of what has been written on the issue. One of those distinguished writers, Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan, who is now a member of the Supreme Court, pointed out that Mr. Justice Gavan Duffy held that the legislation was unconstitutional since it required the courts to dismiss a claim on its merits without a hearing, and also violated the constitutional principles regarding the separation of powers. Mr. Justice Hogan then notes that this impressive judgment was confirmed on appeal by a seminal decision of the Supreme Court.
I question on legal grounds the powers the Minister seeks, having pointed out that Ministers were not omniscient in regard to airport regulation, which had seriously unintended consequences. If there are lawyers who are unhappy with the powers the Minister is seeking, it is right that university Senators should bring that matter to the attention of the House.
Notwithstanding the excellent legal opinion he has given us, and the significance of the legal brains involved, we are talking here about Irish Water, not the regulator. This is not a directive to the regulator; it is a direction in writing to Irish Water. During the initial years of its operation, Irish Water will be in receipt of substantial State funding. Moreover, the power relates to a direction requiring that Irish Water comply with any policies of the Government. This is not in conflict with the independent role of the Commission for Energy Regulation. The Senator also referred to directions to the CER, but these are dealt with in section 3.
I do not believe the Senator's concerns will apply in this particular case, notwithstanding the importance of the arguments he places before us. The law on all of this would have been studied by the Attorney General, who has signed off on this as meeting all the legal requirements and precedents. It is in this Bill having been proofed and stamped by the Attorney General.
I thank the Minister of State. In the case I mentioned, there were two directives. One was to build the new terminal and the other was to raise the money to finance it. The concern is where a Minister gives a directive that is not economically sound, as in the airport case, given we now have a new terminal and 8 million fewer passengers going through Irish airports. That had to be financed and the financing was through an increase in charges, which partly contributed to the reduction in traffic and the difficulties in tourism.
I will not press the point at this stage but will bring the Minister of State's points back to those with whom I was in discussion. We might see developments on Report Stage. Let us suppose the Minister makes a wrong decision and Irish Water has to comply, and the cost of water goes up.
Will the regulator be compelled to finance what turns out to be an excessively expensive situation? I will think about it overnight. I thank the Minister of State for his response.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 21
Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 14, lines 29 and 30, to delete "have regard to Government or nationally agreed guidelines" and substitute "be compelled to Government or nationally agreed guidelines".
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, back to the House. We will try to get through our business as quickly as possible this evening. I am moving these amendments on behalf of my colleague, Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill, who cannot be here. Amendment No. 40 compels Irish Water to set down Government or nationally agreed guidelines on salary payscales. The proposals in the Bill only make it necessary for Irish Water to have regard to Government or nationally agreed guidelines. Fianna Fáil believes we cannot have a scenario where there would be no salary upper limit. Currently, other utility companies are paying salaries in the region of €600,000 per annum to their CEOs, which is not acceptable. Amendment No. 41 compels Irish Water to comply with directives in regard to remuneration, allowances, terms or conditions the Minister may give. This is important for public accountability.
I seek clarification on these amendments and I am not sure whether I support them. Obviously, there is a concern if one looks at what is happening in other sectors, including in the public sector and even in the voluntary hospital sector where there are top-up payments on salaries and so on. There should be proper salary caps in place for senior staff in any new organisation set up which is funded by the State. The section states: "have regard to Government or national policy." Are the words "have regard to" strong enough? It also states: "Irish Water shall comply with any directives with regard to such remuneration, allowances, terms or conditions which the Minister may give to Irish Water". I seek clarification that it is watertight and that we do not have a situation where there are breaches in salary caps in a new body set up , that we have to deal with them afterwards and we are told there are now contractual arrangements in place. Let us make sure we do it right now. I look forward to the Minister of State's response.
This Bill currently provides that Irish Water will be obligated to have regard to Government policy and guidelines when determining the remuneration or allowances for expenses to be paid for members of its staff. It will also be bound by Government guidance and codes of practice. That will cover the issues in regard to semi-State companies. Accordingly, the amendments proposed are unnecessary.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 14, line 34, to delete “may” and substitute "shall".
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."
Tá a fhios agam gur phléamar an t-ábhar seo an lá deireanach. Tá eolas breise tagtha chugam ó shin i leith maidir leis na fostaithe i gcomhairle contae áirithe. Tuigtear dom gur chuir siad aighneacht isteach chuig an Aire Stáit maidir leis an bpléchápiéis a chuir an Roinn amach. Tá suas le 200 duine fostaithe faoi sheirbhísí uisce sa chontae seo. Tá imní orthu faoin gcaoi ina bhfuil siad le haistriú trasna ó áit amháin go háit eile. Cén uair a tharlóidh sé sin? Cén próiseas a bheidh i bhfeidhm? B'fhéidir go dtabharfadh an tAire Stáit soiléiriú dúinn faoin chaoi ina bhfuil an próiseas idir Uisce Éireann agus comhairle chontae faoi leith ag feidhmiú. Tá imní orm ó thaobh ceist a d'ardaigh an Seanadóir Ó Domhnaill an lá faoi dheireadh. D'iarr sé an mbeadh íocaíocht iomarcaíochta nó redundancy payment le fáil ó eagraíocht amháin ag deireadh an phróisis. Dúirt an tAire Stáit nach mbeadh i gceist ach aistriú trasna - cineál transfer of undertakings. Tá imní ar dhaoine i dtaobh a gcearta ceardchumainn. Is mian leo go mbeidís á n-aistriú trasna ar na coinníollacha céanna agus atá siad fostaithe faoi láthair. An transfer of undertakings, sa chomhthéacs dlíthiúil, atá i gceist anseo, nó an mbeidh conradh nua i bhfeidhm? Dúirt an tAire Stáit freisin gur féidir le fostaithe áirithe aistriú trasna láithreach más mian leo, agus go mbeidh an chuid eile acu ag fanacht 12 bliain go dtí go n-aistreofar trasna iad. Breathnaíonn an rud an-scaoilte. Tá an cheist seo á phlé agam i gcomhthéacs an aighneacht atá déanta ag comhairle contae faoi leith nach bhfuil soiléir air ag an bpointe seo. Tá an Nollaig buailte linn arís agus tá an t-aistriú seo le tarlú.
Ba mhaith liom go ndéanfar leasuithe eile ar an mBille seo ar an gcéad Chéim eile chun cuid de na pointí atá ardaithe ag an Seanadóir a threisiú. There will be a small number of leasuithe ag teacht isteach ar an chéad Chéim eile den Bhille seo chun a chinntiú cad a tharlóidh nuair a fhágann daoine local authorities following the conclusion of the service level agreements and to clarify the duration of the first agreement. There will also be leasuithe dealing with the payment of moneys by the Minister for Finance to Irish Water agus freisin to address issues relating to the pensions of public servants transferring to Irish Water. Beidh sé níos soiléire amárach conas mar a bheidh na téarmaí seo istigh sa Bhille. Beidh gach duine sásta go bhfuil cinnteacht ann faoi cad a tharlóidh. Tá súil agam nach mbeidh aon easpa eolais ar an gceist seo. Tá súil agam go bhfuil sé sin sásúil.
Fanfaidh mé go dtí go bhfeicfimid.
On the issue of service level agreements, is it clear in the legislation that the first service level agreement is for 12 years? That is something on which I have been asked to get clarity since the last day.
There will be absolute clarity on that in amendments tabled on Report Stage tomorrow. The 12 years will be in the legislation. It is not in it at present, so we are working on a small number of amendments to clarify that. All outstanding issues in regard to pensions and so on will be clarified in amendments on Report Stage.
Question put and declared carried.
NEW SECTION
Amendments Nos. 42 to 44, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 42:
In page 14, to delete line 39, and in page 15, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:
"22. (1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this section, Irish Water shall prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme or schemes for the granting of superannuation benefits to or in respect of—
(a) persons who were accepted into the employment of Irish Water in accordance with section 15, and
(b) persons who were appointed under section 21 and, immediately prior to their appointment, were—
(i) officers of the Minister, or
(ii) members of the staff of a local authority.".
These amendment are proposals for the superannuation section and take account of consultations with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Irish Water and the local authority sector. The agreed approach is that the Irish Water consultative group needs to be reflected in the legislation. It has been agreed that the pension benefits accruing to public servants transferring to Irish Water should be no better or no worse than had they remained in the employment of a Department or a local authority. It is an important part of the overall water sector reform that there are no barriers to the movement of staff from the local authorities to Irish Water. As I said, further amendments will be tabled on Report Stage tomorrow.
Amendment put and declared carried.
SECTION 22
Government amendment No. 43:
In page 15, to delete lines 24 to 32 and substitute the following:
“(7) (a) Save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with a recognised trade union or staff association and approved by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, a scheme under this section shall, as respects a person referred to in subsection (1), provide for the granting to or in respect of him or her of superannuation benefits upon and subject to such terms and conditions as are not less favourable and not more favourable to him or her than the terms and conditions in relation to the grant of such benefits that would have applied to him or her had he or she continued to be an officer of the Minister or a member of the staff of the local authority concerned.”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Government amendment No. 44:
In page 15, to delete lines 43 and 44, and in page 16, to delete lines 1 to 7 and substitute the following:
“(8) Where, in the period beginning—
(a) on the date on which a person was accepted into the employment of Irish Water in accordance with section 15, or
(b) on the date on which a person was appointed under section 21, where such person was immediately prior to his or her appointment—
(i) an officer of the Minister, or
(ii) a member of the staff of a local authority,
and ending immediately before the commencement of a scheme under this section, a superannuation benefit falls due for payment to or in respect of a person so accepted into the employment of Irish Water, or so appointed, the benefit shall be calculated and paid by Irish Water in accordance with such scheme, arrangements or enactments in relation to superannuation, as applied to the person immediately before the said date and, for that purpose, his or her pensionable service with Irish Water shall be aggregated with his or her previous pensionable service.”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Question, "That section 22, as amended, be agreed to", put and declared carried.
SECTION 23
Government amendment No. 45:
In page 16, lines 14 to 31, to delete all words from and including “(1) The” in line 14 down to and including line 31 and substitute the following:
“(1) The Minister shall, for the purposes of defraying the cost to Irish Water of paying superannuation benefits to or in respect of persons referred to in subparagraph (i) of section 22(1)(b), pay to Irish Water a sum equal to the cost that the Minister would incur were he or she liable to pay superannuation benefits to or in respect of those persons upon their retirement from Irish Water or death and calculated on the basis that their pensionable service and pensionable remuneration upon retirement or death remained the same as their pensionable service and pensionable remuneration as officers of the Minister immediately before the date of their being so accepted into the employment of Irish Water.
(2) The Minister shall, for the purposes of defraying the cost to Irish Water of paying superannuation benefits to or in respect of—
(a) persons who were accepted into the employment of Irish Water in accordance with section 15, and
(b) persons referred to in subparagraph (ii) of section 22(1)(b),
pay to Irish Water a sum equal to the cost that the local authority would incur were it liable to pay superannuation benefits to or in respect of those members of staff upon their retirement from Irish Water or death and calculated on the basis that their pensionable service and pensionable remuneration upon retirement or death remained the same as their pensionable service and pensionable remuneration with the local authority immediately before the date of their being so accepted into the employment of Irish Water.”.
Amendments Nos. 45 to 47, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
The amendments take account of consultations with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and also with Irish Water and the local authorities. The agreed approach at the Irish Water consultative group needs to be reflected in this legislation. It is necessary to recognise that there will be future costs arising for Irish Water in respect of staff transferring to it from the public sector. This section provides a mechanism for the Minister to provide funding to Irish Water in respect of these costs.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Government amendment No. 46:
In page 16, line 34, after “Water,” to insert “with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Government amendment No. 47:
In page 16, line 36, after “Minister” to insert “with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Question, "That section 23, as amended, be agreed to", put and declared carried.
SECTION 24
Government amendment No. 48:
In page 17, line 25, after “area” to insert “within the meaning of the Act of 2001”.
This is a minor technical amendment to clarify the meaning of the term "administrative area", which has the meaning assigned by the Local Government Act 2001.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 24, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
This section refers to the performance of functions by local authorities on behalf of Irish Water. One of the arguments that the Minister of State would make in favour of the Bill is that the proposal to transfer the assets and liabilities of the water services sections of local authorities would help improve the quality of service and also increase efficiencies in water services nationally. It is one of the core arguments made by the Government. I have a difficulty with transferring power away from local authorities into Irish Water. Local authorities would need assurances that all liabilities existing on their books at the time of transfer would be taken up by Irish Water, to include loans, outstanding capital balances and any contingent liabilities. I hope that confirmation can be given because it is important for local authorities. As we discuss this section, it must be acknowledged that we are dealing with very significant powers which will be taken from local government. In my view, local government and local authorities have done a very good job with regard to water services.
I assume the Minister of State will agree that local councils have always been seen as a first point of contact during emergencies when there is a problem with water supplies, as evidenced during the severe weather in 2009 and 2010. Many local authority members and staff will be aggrieved that this service is being taken away and that the establishment of Irish Water may not deliver a more effective response to similar weather events in the future. I know the Minister of State will argue that Irish Water will be effective in this regard but some people remain unconvinced. It is worth acknowledging the very good and constructive role played by local authorities to date in providing water services, notwithstanding any arguments or differences we may have on the issue. We should commend the staff of local authorities in particular who worked in very difficult conditions over many years. I empathise with many councillors who are fearful of losing some of these core services from local government to Irish Water. Those are my general points on the section.
On the general area of service level agreements, one of our significant concerns in some of the more westerly counties such as Mayo, Galway and Roscommon is the priority to be given to local developments. One of the local authorities has made an application to the Department on the issue of foreign direct investment. At the moment, some of those western and more rural county councils can ensure that the water services infrastructure is available to encourage companies interested in locating in their region. These county councils are very concerned that they will be unable to do so when Uisce Éireann is established which may result in an IDA-type mentality where cities such as Galway, Cork and Dublin are given priority for foreign direct investment. The county councils are concerned they will no longer have that power because they will not have control over water services. This is a very significant concern. I ask the Minister of State to comment.
This country does not have a great track record with regard to the provision of other services in rural areas. Under Telecom Éireann, as bad as it was, it was difficult enough to get work done in a rural area but when it came to Eircom, it was even more difficult. There is a concern that the EPA findings which we discussed still show that a significant level of funding is required for remedial actions. For example, the EPA remedial action list shows 147 supplies and it indicates that remedial works in a further 70 supplies need to be completed by the end of 2013. There have been issues around THM, cryptosporidium and E. coli. My issue about the service level agreements is that centralised decision-making will be based in Dublin in Uisce Éireann, who will decide which repairs and services are to be prioritised and how the diminishing capital will be divvied out.
The Minister of State has not explained the magical arithmetic of where the money for the capital investment will come from. He referred to €1.2 billion and the fact that only €200,000 is available from the commercial rates and that the shortfall will have to be funded from the investment fund from abroad. How much will be capital investment? Who will be in charge of deciding in counties Galway, Mayo, Roscommon or Leitrim which schemes are to be prioritised? More pertinently, which counties will be prioritised? In other spheres of Irish society, the major urban centres and the eastern counties tend to get the bulk of the funding for infrastructural projects such as roads and rail networks. This has been our experience, unfortunately, on the western seaboard and in western counties and it is probably also the case in the Border counties. I am very concerned and many county councillors have similar concerns that once Uisce Éireann is established and it is in charge of who gets the money, we will see another version of this prioritising policy.
The service level agreement between a local authority and Uisce Éireann will last for 12 years which means the county council will be doing most of the work. Depending on the county the council may not be involved with design work but it will be involved in discussions with Uisce Éireann about the key projects and the cost predictions. Uisce Éireann must have regard to the policy of the county council, to the county development plan, to the Enterprise Ireland development plans and other statutory agencies such as IDA Ireland and the EPA.
If we were to do all the work that needs to be done, it is believed we would need €600 million a year in capital expenditure for the next X number of years. Even at the best of times we did not have that level of funding for capital expenditure. A balance needs to be struck between the needs of the area and what the funding can provide. The Senator is correct that decisions will be necessary as to whether, for example, Cashel rather than Cork city will get a €20 million investment plant.
Practical decisions will have to be made on those issues but the decisions of local authorities, as always has been the case, even with the Department, is that there has to be two-way communication. There must be due regard to what is essential. A list of priorities has to be made, and Irish Water, Uisce Éireann, will produce its plan, which will be transparent. It will be published and will then be open for opinions. It will go before the regulator and the regulator must decide the cost. That is a critical job and it must be done in a transparent way because we must ensure that everybody signs off on the key issues that must be dealt with and that the money is available to do that.
I do not take much solace from the Minister of State's answer because what he is saying feeds into my question. On the figures available to us, capital investment in water has been cut from almost €435 million in 2011 to €331 million in 2012, with more cuts planned until the budget is €266 million. The Minister said we would need €600 million a year to keep up with the current demand-----
For capital expenditure. That is not the running cost.
Can the Minister tell us what the planned capital expenditure for next year will be because my fear is if we do not have the €600 million we need, and we only have €250 million or €260 million, the lion's share of that will be swallowed up by the bigger counties, certainly on the eastern seaboard? It is all well and good for Galway County Council or county councils in Mayo, Leitrim or Roscommon to have their priority list but if Uisce Éireann has only €266 million and it is prioritising Dublin, Wicklow or Louth, that leaves those of us on the western seaboard at a loss. The genuine fear is that there will not be enough money to go around and that rural areas in particular in those counties we will be left behind.
Also, will the Minister clarify whether the moneys collected will be put into the national pot? For example, does the money collected on, say, the €250 or €750 charge per house in Galway go into a national pot and is then divvied out or will ring-fencing happen in local areas to ensure that the money collected in Galway will be spent in Galway? That is something the taxpayers will want to know.
I know we are dealing with 12 year service level agreements but Senator Ó Clochartaigh is making an important point about a concern that would be shared by local authorities across the State in terms of how Irish Water will give priority to water projects demanded by local authorities. Some weeks ago a delegation of Oireachtas Members and local councillors met with the director of services with responsibility for water in Waterford County Council. It was to do with a housing estate in Dunhill, County Waterford where the one bore hole that will feed the new housing development had essentially dried up, causing problems with water. On two or three occasions the housing estate was without water. The council had to put in a temporary tank in front of the estate, which is located there now almost on a permanent basis until a solution is found.
When we met the director of services we asked him how the local authority determines the projects that are a priority. As we know, many demands are made of local government, even now in terms of all the different local authorities. There are many demands regarding the water mains schemes, areas wanting to join the mains, repairs that need to be carried out, and systems that need to be upgraded but as Senator Ó Clochartaigh said, rural areas in particular often lose out because of the sheer cost of repairs and so on. The question arises about hierarchy and how Irish Water will determine the projects that are a priority. Those are the issues we would want teased out in advance of a Bill to ensure we know exactly how Irish Water will treat those competing demands from all local authorities. Local authorities will continue to lobby Irish Water on all of the schemes needing to be upgraded, repaired, put in place or whatever. How will Irish Water prioritise all those different schemes once it is centralised? That will be a test of whether this will work in practice. I acknowledge what the Minister said about the 12 year level agreement that will iron out whatever difficulties that might arise but those are the genuine concerns of local authority members. I support the comments made by Senator Ó Clochartaigh on this section.
If I may, I will repeat some of the points I made. Section 27 provides that Irish Water shall prepare investment plans setting out where Uisce Éireann considers investment in infrastructure is necessary for the effective performance of its functions. That is the first point. There will be investment plans. In developing these investment plans, Uisce Éireann shall take account of the water services strategic plan prepared under section 26 and a range of other policy considerations including, and this is the important part, local area plans, regional planning guidelines and strategic development zones.
Before preparing an investment plan Irish Water will be required to consult with the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the regional bodies in respect of whose functional area the investment plan is likely to apply, and each planning authority in respect of whose functional area the investment plan is likely to apply. Copies of this plan must be submitted by Irish Water to the regional and planning authorities. If someone is on a planning authority, they will get a copy of the plan and will have an opportunity to debate it. The first investment plan should be prepared for the two year period after the transfer date, and further investment plans shall be for durations to be determined by the Commissioner for Energy Regulation. It must consult with the elected people in the council, the planning authorities, the EPA and the regional authorities.
I have no doubt there will be difficult decisions to be made, and they will be predicated upon what the capital investment is for whatever period, but the first period will be two years, which will at least give certainty to the works that will be done in the first two years. I presume many of those works will be at the planning stage now because I could not imagine getting too many new ones designed and ready to roll out of the blue in terms of planning, costing and so on.
I would be confident Uisce Éireann will consult widely. I am confident that local councillors would be aware of what is happening. Conflicts of interest might arise in terms of what a local area might want. It might want to rezone 200 acres outside its town for whatever purpose, which is a problem that arose in the past. That is what councils did during the boom but there were no services to deal with that planning and now many of the planning permissions granted have been rescinded. What we need is proper planning and development and proper consultation, and I believe that will happen.
Is section 24, as amended, agreed to?
I call the Senator on the section. We have given this section quite a good airing.
We have but there is another issue that is very important. We talked about the EPA findings. I have before me the recommendations on public water supplies. Will Uisce Éireann be directed to give health and safety the top priority if, for example, it is found there is a problem with a water supply such as the one in Roscommon which has a permanent boil notice on it? Will that be given priority? I understand also that the Killarney water supply is in a treacherous position at the moment and that there is a serious need for an upgrade. We have them in County Galway also, which I listed the other day. Six supplies have issues with E. coli, trihalomethanes, THMs, etc. The recommendation from the EPA is that water services authorities, WSAs, should prioritise improvement works on supplies, with a boil water or water restriction notice in place, on all or part of the supply in order to have the required works completed as a matter of urgency. What will be Uisce Éireann's priorities? Will it be the health and safety issues raised by the EPA on an annual basis? In fairness to the county councils, their planning permissions are in place. Their plans are ready to go but the issue has been a lack of capital investment. They have not had enough money to address the issues, many of which have been outstanding for a long time. How can we be confident that Uisce Éireann will do a better job, especially when we are dealing with a centralised organisation that will be based in Dublin?
In fairness, the Minister of State has been somewhat helpful with his response and has clarified some of our concerns. The point he is making is that there will be consultation with local authorities. If I understand what he said, local authorities will be asked to submit a plan to Irish Water in respect of the various schemes that may need to be upgraded or whatever it might be in their area.
They would be asked to submit their opinions and to say what is the priority. The difficulty for Irish Water will be how to determine which of the competing plans for schemes coming in from local authorities around the State are most necessary. This is a finite resource and that would be a big job for Irish Water. When it is finished with plans and consultation Irish Water has to decide how it will spend its money. What guidelines will it work from? What hierarchy will it work from?
I do not have all the answers. Policy issues are based on consultation and knowledge. Uisce Éireann will produce its plan and put it out for consultation. The local authority will then see what it wants each county to do, what the priorities are, following consultation. That has to be costed. Then it goes to the regulator who decides what the charge should be, if all the projects are carried out, and what level of charge is sustainable over a period of years. Some plans, such as a major sewage treatment plant, will take four or five years to come to fruition. Multi-million euro developments will not happen tomorrow. This will depend on how they are planned. There will be costs for the design and maybe for consultants to help with the design but health and safety is the absolute priority. The water has to be potable. One has to be able to drink it safely. The question then arises of what is needed to make it safe. I do not know the exact details but the views of the EPA will be paramount in my mind, the Senator’s mind and, I am sure, in the mind of Irish Water. It will have to deal with those issues and there will have to be a cost for them.
I am glad that Sinn Féin is raising this issue here. A sustainable water supply has to be paid for sustainably. We have to be able to raise the funding to pay for the improvements that are needed. We have to get more money from commercial rates; get private investment in; the company will have to borrow and there will have to be a charge. The mix of all of those factors will result in the decision about what work will or will not be done. The most important thing that we can all do is identify in our own areas the key priorities and put them into the mix and see what comes out. The consumer will pay but the price must be seen to be fair and acceptable to the consumer. If 42% of all water nationally is unaccounted for and never gets to anybody's taps that is a major issue. There must be physical improvement of the scheme as well as capital improvement. How will it deal with water unaccounted for in Roscommon, where the rate is very high? I think in Kerry it is over 60%. I stand to be corrected on that. All of those issues must be dealt with. If and when they are, we will have a modern, fit-for-purpose water system.
I put the Minister of State on notice of an issue that I will raise on the next and subsequent sections. He mentioned health and safety and the critical importance of having potable water. One of my concerns, which is perhaps more appropriate to sections 25 and 26, is that we are talking about-----
I accept that but I want to put the Minister of State on notice. For many years we have been shovelling fluoride into water to make it more potable and kill off bacteria. Is that really the solution? There is a school of thought that we have the worst rate in Europe of adding fluoride to water. Studies in America and internationally have shown that this is not the answer. This was the case with previous governments here. I am deeply concerned about this. There is a growing debate about fluoridation. I live in Bantry and although technically the water is potable I have not drunk water from the mains system in Bantry for 20 years. Many people do not. They buy large containers of water. One man told me that when he poured the water from the tap into whiskey he could not taste the whiskey.
There is a broad issue about quality of water. If Irish Water does not address that it will hit the Minister of State, the Government or the officials responsible like a train. There was a public meeting in Bantry last Friday where very well-heeled people turned out. It is gathering momentum. Putting lots of fluoride into the water is like giving a fellow who has a bad back an injection to kill the pain which wears off after a few hours.
This may be more appropriate to sections 25 and 26 but I am putting the Minister of State on notice that I have deep personal concerns on this issue. We debated it here a few months ago. If we do not address that in this House it will be like a rolling stone coming down the track for the Minister of State for the water services.
This issue arose at a health board meeting I attended many years ago. The present Secretary General of the Department of Health happened to be an official of the health board at the time and said that there had been a significant improvement in dental hygiene and the age cohort of those who retain more of their teeth than ever before. Due to the fluoridation of water children are holding on to their teeth much better, and more people have fuller sets of teeth, for want of a better word, than previous generations had. It definitely does work. The Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act 1960 and the Fluoridation of Water Supplies Regulations 2007 provide for the making of arrangements by the HSE for the fluoridation of public water supplies and this is the responsibility of the Minister for Health who decides what is or is not competent in the health area. Water fluoridation is the adjustment of the natural concentration of fluoride in drinking water to the optimum recommended levels for the prevention of tooth decay.
As of July 2007 the level of fluoride in drinking water in Ireland has been set at between 0.6 and 0.8 per million equivalent to milligrams per litre. Water fluoridation and the use of appropriate fluorides is a major plank of public health policy in Ireland in the prevention and management of tooth decay. The Irish expert body on fluorides and health, established in 2004, continuously monitors new and emerging issues around fluoride and its effects. It advises that the balance of scientific evidence worldwide confirms that water fluoridation at the optimal level does not cause any ill effects and protects the oral health of the population. That is the point I made earlier. The opinion of the expert body is supported by major international, scientifically validated reviews and the effects of fluoride on health and related matters are kept under constant review. I do not know if that is helpful to the Senator.
What is the position of group water schemes, which at the moment are provided with water from the public system that manages the system from source? Until now, Mayo County Council, in the Cathaoirleach’s home county, has had discretionary powers where there has been leakage or overuse of water within the system to grant a write-down on the debts, and in many cases that has maintained the stability of the group water schemes. Where there have been leakages in undeveloped rural areas the schemes probably do not have the money to fix all of the pipes. They may have lodged applications for capital funding and be waiting for support. Will Uisce Éireann under the service level agreements have similar discretionary powers? Will it be able to give a write-down to a group water scheme in rural Mayo which does not have the funding to upgrade the infrastructure or might be waiting for a grant of some sort or capital investment? It might look to Uisce Éireann through the list of priorities about which we spoke a minute ago. It might not be very high on that list of priorities. It will not be sustainable if it has to pay for all the water but it is not responsible if it does not have the capital funding available to fix the pipes where the 34% or 40% leakage is happening. Could the Minister of State explain to us whether Uisce Éireann will have that discretion and will it use it in the case of group water schemes?
The Senator is talking about group water schemes that have a public water supply, not group water schemes that have their own separate water supply. They would have the same arrangement as they have at present. If they are with the local authority, it can help and work with them. They will be customers of Uisce Éireann so it will have the same responsibility and workmanlike arrangement with them to help to improve matters.
To clarify, what the Minister of State said with regard to the consumer is that the first fix will come free of charge, so if there are any issues of leakage from the consumer's end, it will be fixed for free the first time for an individual home owner. However, a group water scheme may have an application in for an upgrade of the scheme which has been waiting for five, ten or 15 years. Therefore, it would not have full control over the leakage from its system, which is how I imagine the scheme would have got a writedown from the council for the overuse of water. For example, if there was 30% or 40% leakage through a scheme's pipes, Mayo County Council would come to an arrangement with the scheme over the amount of water used, and give it a writedown so it would remain sustainable. If the group water scheme is still waiting for capital investment which is not forthcoming, will Uisce Éireann do the first fix and fix the system for that scheme before it begins charging for the water, given this is to be compared with a consumer situation where the consumer pays for whatever water is being used?
Capital funding for the group sector remains with the Department so it is not transferring to Irish Water. In other words, it will be a matter for the Department and the group water scheme to work on, but the schemes would be customers of Irish Water as well, given it is supplying them with the water. I can get a further briefing note for the Senator, if that is helpful to him.
It is a very important point to clarify because, obviously, the Department will itself have limited resources as regards capital funding. If Uisce Éireann is to treat each group water scheme as a pure customer and charge it for every drop of water it is using, and if the scheme is losing a lot of water due to a lack of capital investment, this will put the scheme in a very detrimental position and will put a huge burden on the community. My point is that, in the past, the councils have had a discretionary power to write down the cost of this. Will Uisce Éireann have that power? Is it the case that the Minister of State does not know but he might clarify this tomorrow, or that the answer is "No", it does not have that power and it will charge for every drop?
The Senator raises a very important point. The best and most honest thing I can say to him is that I will get him clarification on that for tomorrow. What I understand is that the capital funding for the group sector remains with the Department so it will not be going to Uisce Éireann. The Senator is making the point that they will become customers of Irish Water and he wants to know what that relationship will be. He also alluded to different arrangements or flexibility within arrangements. Obviously, one scheme may be different to another and there may be different ways of operating in different counties, where water comes from a public supply. I will come back to the Senator on that issue.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 25
Amendments Nos. 49, 51 and 53, in the name of Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 18, line 3, after “Commission” to insert “and the Oireachtas”.
This relates to the codes of practice. Senator Ó Domhnaill's amendments seek that the codes of practice shall make provision for customer service standards, billing, methods of payment, the provision of information to customers of Irish Water and any other matters the Commission deems necessary. What he is providing for in this amendment is that the codes of practice should have an input from both Houses of the Oireachtas - the Dáil and Seanad - during their preparation.
I support the amendments and I wanted to talk on the section in any case. The section provides for the preparation of codes of practice by Irish Water and it covers many areas. This mainly concerns the user and, while I hate to use the word "consumer" when it comes to water, unfortunately, that is the road we are travelling down. The codes of practice will make provision for customer service standards, billing, methods of payment of water charges and the provision of information to customers of Irish Water, and these codes of practice will be set by the Commission for Energy Regulation.
In some of our previous exchanges, while we genuinely wanted to make sure the Oireachtas would be much more prescriptive than it is and not leave this to any other commission, the Minister of State somehow suggested we were not being fair to the CER and were perhaps somewhat undermining that organisation. That is not at all the point. It does not matter what organisation is coming up with the codes of practice. The core point is that it should be the Oireachtas, the democratically elected representatives, who deal with these issues.
We saw with the household charge and the property tax the problems that arose with, for example, methods of payment and other difficulties. If similar difficulties arise with water charges, it would not be acceptable at that time for the Government to pass the buck on to the CER by saying it has nothing to do with the Government and is a matter for the CER. That would be a mistake on the part of the Government and it would be unfair to put the commission in that position. We should be prescriptive in this regard.
The section also deals with the methods of payment and billing for water. However, we still do not know who is going to set the charge and, in particular, whether the CER will set it. If it does, that is also unfair because, again, this is clearly passing the buck by a Government which is bringing in water charges, saying they are necessary, standing over them and then not being prepared to set the charge itself. Instead, by farming it out to the CER, it will have to take the flak which comes from the public. I have no doubt that when, in time, the full cost of water services is passed on to the customer - I hate using that term but it is the one used in the Bill and is the reality when water charges come in - the Government will say it is not its fault because the rate has been set by the CER, which is fully independent, nothing to do with the Government and all of that. That is not nonsense. The Government is bringing in water charges.
I have a grave difficulty with supporting this section, which simply allows for the CER to set the codes of practice, not the Oireachtas. It is very appropriate that the Oireachtas would be much more prescriptive in all of these areas, particularly in regard to the billing and methods of payment. This will be a big issue for people once it becomes a reality. I believe the Minister of State will accept, leaving aside the fact he supports water charges and would sell this as a good idea, a view he is entitled to hold, that many people are very concerned about the level of charges coming at them. The Government must not simply attempt to wash its hands. We have seen what happened with the HSE, where Ministers wash their hands of responsibility and say "It is the HSE's fault, not our fault". I would hate to see that happen to the CER when this becomes a hot political issue after people get their bills through the door.
I have grave concerns about this section. I agree with the amendment that it should not just be the commission but also the Oireachtas that is part of the preparation of the codes of practice.
Does Senator O'Donovan wish to speak?
I will reserve my right to come back in at a later point.
I want to say very clearly, as I pointed out the last day, that the Oireachtas has a very important role and it is for the Members of the Oireachtas to decide they want to play that role. I pointed out that Senators making their comments here is very important. More important is the fact this is a consultative process. In other words, Irish Water makes the plan and it then goes to the regulator, and the regulator then proposes its decision and asks for the views of the Oireachtas Members. I believe the Oireachtas committee should invite in Uisce Éireann and go through its plan, and also invite the regulator to discuss its decision.
The Senators referred to the Oireachtas getting involved in making decisions. I believe the collective wisdom of the Oireachtas would have to be listened to. It is terribly important that Oireachtas Members play an active role in bringing in the regulator and Irish Water to go through the issues with them. That is how they will have their say. It would be wrong for us to set down all the details of the physical code of practice but there is no reason Oireachtas Members could and should not make a comprehensive list to be sent to the regulator in order to outline the views of the Oireachtas prior to the decision coming out.
The approval of the codes of practice is proposed as a statutory role for the regulator.
This is a key element of the regulator's role in providing for protection of customers through the preparation of the codes of practice. The regulator will act in a fully transparent way in discharging its functions relating to the economic regulation of Irish Water. As I said, there is absolutely nothing preventing the Oireachtas from debating all of these matters and the amendments are, therefore, unnecessary. I would urge the Senator to follow up on the points he has made by, for example, putting down a motion in this House. In addition, the Oireachtas committees are extremely important as a forum for accountability and allowing members to express their views. That is how Members can play an active role in this. I am not suggesting that Senator Cullinane is being in any way passive, but there certainly is scope for all Members to take an active approach in asking questions, seeking information and so on.
Notwithstanding what the Minister of State said in regard to fluoridation, I urge that consideration be given to including that issue in the code of practice. The Minister of State referred to health considerations, but the view is gathering momentum that there might be serious repercussions down the line. I am not convinced by the health argument. I understand the Minister of State's position that fluoridation has more positives than negatives from a health point of view, but the reason there is so much fluoride in our water is to kill off bacteria that are potentially harmful rather than to protect our teeth. The major issue with teeth when I was a child was that there was no health provision for dental care. People are far more conscious of their dental health these days and those who look after their teeth, irrespective of fluoride, will ensure they keep them into their old age.
The argument the Minister of State gave was also trotted out by the previous Government, but I am one of a growing number of people who are not convinced by it. We must ask ourselves whether it is appropriate that we should be prepared, for the next 25 years, to ignore the problems with fluoride. Several countries are moving away from the practice of adding fluoride to the water supply. There is certainly an obligation to examine what is happening in the rest of Europe, the United States and Australia.
Senators are having no difficulty in getting their teeth into this Bill.
To clarify the point I made, it is not that I see my role or anybody's role in this area as passive. The reality, however, is that we are not being prescriptive in this legislation. The Minister of State is suggesting that the Commission for Energy Regulation will again engage and consult with all stakeholders and that Oireachtas Members can be part of that consultation process. That is fair enough. What I am saying is that we can move from being passive players to active participants in the framing of the codes of practice by being much more prescriptive now. Why should we have to wait until the Bill is passed before framing motions, as the Minister of State suggested, in this House or elsewhere, or making representations to the commission?
My point is that we are dealing here with issues that are of fundamental importance to customers, such as billing, methods of payments and so on. I foresee problems in this regard, whether teething problems or more substantial issues of concern to consumers in terms of what they will have to pay and how they can pay it. I am concerned that when those issues arise, we will see Ministers passing the buck and blaming the commission instead of taking responsibility themselves. I am making the point now, before we pass the Bill, that the Oireachtas should be much more prescriptive. If the Minister or the Government wants to pass the buck, that is up to them. We are arguing strongly that the Oireachtas should be far more prescriptive in all of these areas. We certainly should not be obliged to be passive participants in all of this, with no capacity other than to lobby the commission. The Oireachtas is the body that sets legislation. We make the laws and, in so doing, there are areas where we should be more prescriptive. The codes of practice are one such area.
That is the point I was making - not that I would put myself in a passive role in this but that we are being forced to be passive participants simply because we do not seem to have any role. The responsibility is being farmed out to the commission to come up with the codes of practice, after which we can only make telephone calls, write letters and put down motions. That is not a sufficiently robust arrangement. Moreover, it is not good enough to put public representatives, either Government or Opposition Members, in that position.
I am not an expert on codes of practice but I know what I would like to see included therein, as does the Senator. He has his view on this and I have mine. The CER has a great deal of experience and knowledge in this area. My point is that it is open to Senators to ensure commission members are brought before the committee for a comprehensive engagement. That is far more than making telephones or writing letters. The committee is a public forum where everybody can see and hear what is happening. I hope members of the committee will question the commission members closely on all their plans and proposals. The codes of practice will be presented in the form of a consultative document, and committee members will have an opportunity to request that a particular issue be addressed therein.
I do not underestimate the importance of the role of the Oireachtas in any of this. The regulator is on the record as wishing to communicate proactively with Members. My concern is to ensure the law in this area is the best it can be. What happens in other jurisdictions is very relevant and we will look at the code of practice in the United Kingdom and so on in that context. That is how we garner collective wisdom and devise better regulation. The Oireachtas has a very constructive role to play in that process.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 18, line 3, after "Commission" to insert "and the National Consumer Agency".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 18, line 15, after "Commission" to insert "or the Oireachtas".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 18, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"(h) recognition of the right that County Councillors and Public Representatives have to make representations on behalf of the public.".
This issue was discussed on Second Stage, so I will not dwell on it now other than to say that this is an important amendment. I raised this issue when we met recently with departmental officials and the impression I got was that they were very favourably disposed to the idea that the right of councillors and public representatives to make representations on behalf of the public might be written into the legislation. It is fine to have a gentlemen's agreement or something of that nature, but there can be no guarantees unless there is specific provision in the Bill. We saw what happened when the health boards were eliminated. Public representatives should be able, possibly by way of a dedicated telephone line, to make representations on behalf of the public, including at the weekend. Councillors are generally the first port of call when people experience these types of problems, not Uisce Éireann or anybody else. That should be written into the legislation.
It is important that the capacity of councillors and other public representatives to make representation on behalf of the public should be recognised in law. In fact, there should be a requirement that all such representations be answered within 14 days or, at worst, 21 days. Local authorities have had an important role historically in dealing with water services. I met a man in the butcher's shop last Saturday who was very angry because his water supply had been cut off for three or four days. His first thought was to contact the council, not the CER or anybody else. County councillors and Oireachtas Members should be entitled, where there is a serious water supply issue, to make appropriate representations. This amendment is a fair and reasonable provision and I hope the Minister of State will accept it.
I support the amendment. It is an issue of balance and we must be careful with it. Public representatives deal with people on a range of issues. If somebody has a difficulty with a bank or is in mortgage distress or there might be a difficulty with the ESB, and if one contacts the bank or the ESB or the body on behalf of the individual-----
The Senator is not elected to the bank.
Senator Cullinane without interruption.
I did not get that point. The body one contacts is irrelevant. It could be the ESB or a State body. Some State bodies will not accept a representation from a public representative and say it will only deal with the client or individual, especially if it relates to somebody's account. There are data protection laws around that, which is important. In those circumstances, I always get a letter from the individual to give me permission to talk to the body or bank concerned. I support the amendment but we must be conscious of the data protection element.
It is an important amendment. When Irish Water comes into being people will encounter difficulties in a range of areas. Somebody might get into arrears and although their water might not be fully cut off, some type of penalty or sanction will be imposed. In those situations people will go to their public representatives and we will have to make representations. It is a real concern, especially for councillors. It might be a smaller problem for Members of the Oireachtas, who have direct telephone numbers for most of the State bodies and so forth, but councillors certainly encounter this more often. I would welcome clarification on this from the Minister.
This is a very important issue. I have a commitment from Irish Water or Uisce Éireann and the local authorities that they will establish a local point of contact in each council area. In other words, an employee of the county council will be one of the points of contact specifically for water issues. In keeping with the expectations of elected representatives, the contact point will be a local official who is dealing with the water service. It will be somebody who works for the council. They will know the elected person and will deal with water, so they will know what they are talking about, will understand the nature of the query and will respond quickly. That is very important. For elected representatives who choose to use the Irish Water contact centre, a separate help desk will be established to ensure their queries are dealt with swiftly. That is the hot-line, for want of a better word. Irish Water is currently establishing a network of regional offices which will also provide a point of contact for elected representatives. A team of regional communications managers will be appointed at the appropriate time as well. There will be many links.
In addition to those methods of engagement, Irish Water intends to develop a proactive communication with elected representatives, including SMS alerts on operational activities or incidents in their areas. If something happens in a county, the representative will receive a text. There will be regular briefing information on significant milestones, what the plans are and what will happen, and proactive engagement on the development of major capital infrastructure. That refers back to the points Members were making about what is required in a county or city and what will be done. Irish Water will be proactive. In other words, it will contact the public representatives to find out their views. The metering regional communications team will continue to provide a point of contact on metering and regional briefings for public representatives will be arranged early in the new year.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 18, line 22, to delete “may” and substitute “or the Oireachtas shall”.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 18, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
“(7) Irish Water shall be subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2013.”.
We got some clarification from the Minister on this earlier in the debate on the Bill. The amendment provides that Irish Water shall be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. There was concern about this among members of the public, journalists and non-governmental organisations, NGOs, who contacted and lobbied public representatives. I seek further clarification from the Minister before making a substantial contribution on the amendment. My understanding of what he said is that it is only in the initial establishment of Irish Water that the Freedom of Information Act does not apply but that once it is up and running, it will apply.
It is not a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, but for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. I understand the inclusion of Irish Water under this legislation will be further considered by that Minister. That is as far as I can go.
The problem is there is no guarantee. This amendment seeks to ensure that it will be subject to that Act. To be helpful, we will not press the amendment and perhaps table it on Report Stage when the Minister might have had time to consult with the relevant Minister. If that Minister is agreeable to it, the amendment could be accepted on Report Stage.
I will try to get exact clarification of the words that were used for tomorrow.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 25 stand part of the Bill."
The items in this section are all consumer items, as Senator Cullinane said. It deals with the billing, payments, information, complaints, codes of practice and so forth. I sought to involve the National Consumer Agency, but that is not acceptable to the Minister of State. We are not sure of the position with freedom of information.
I was struck by Senator Keane's remark about writing something in the legislation. There is a wish in the House to have better consumer protection than is in these codes of practice. The Minister of State said we could take it up with the committee, but this body is superior to the committee and we have made no progress in finding out the price of water or the general free allowance. What is the point in telling a House of the Parliament to bring the matter to a committee? This is the decision making body and I seek much better protection for the consumer than is provided here. I want checks and balances, not a larger PR department of the type we already have in the energy sector. Throughout the north midlands people regard consultation with the electricity industry as a waste of time. It has a view on pylons and it is not listening to anybody. The Government promised to unite the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority but it is more than half way through its term and it has not done it.
The consumer is not well served by this section. This reminds me of the era before free legal aid when one said, "We will ask the gardaí to be a bit nicer to him because he has no money". People need rights, not larger PR and bits of concessions here and there. This will be a very powerful body and I do not believe it is controlled. Some of the reasonable suggestions from this side of the House have not been accepted by the Minister but the codes of practice proposed in section 25 do not protect the consumer. The precedents in energy, health insurance and bus transport all indicate how this will proceed. I read out to the Minister of State what people have written in the literature on regulatory capture. We must protect consumers. There were two examples from the Minister of State's Department only an hour ago in the House. HomeBond proved to be useless and the construction industry proved to be useless. I give the Department the benefit of the doubt because it thought consumers would be protected in the pyrite case. However, when it looked at it, they were not protected. I wish to ensure it is written in the legislation that the consumers of water will be protected, not just assume it will be done in a committee or that something would not happen. Only this evening we dealt with examples of where, by not putting something in legislation, the rights of people who lived in pyrite houses and the builders who bought material from those quarries proved to be unenforceable.
We must take a stronger consumer line. For that reason, I oppose these codes of practice. They are not radical enough or sufficiently protective of the customer.
What would the Senator include that is not there?
I tabled an amendment, which the Minister of State rejected. It was to include the National Consumer Agency. Individuals or individual members of committees must have some legal basis on which they can take on these powerful monopolies.
That is why I tabled amendment No. 50. I would like there to be some protection for the isolated individuals who will be obliged to face up to this huge monopoly. We have tried to facilitate the bestowing of such protection by having section 25 amended. However, we have not been successful in our efforts and, as a result, I must oppose the section.
Question put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 13.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Landy, Denis.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
Níl
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Mark.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Mullen, Rónán.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- Power, Averil.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators Trevor Ó Clochartaigh and Diarmuid Wilson.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 26
Question proposed: "That section 26 stand part of the Bill."
I accept the logic of having a water services strategic plan and it is good that it will span a long period of 25 years. I also welcome the requirement that the plan have regard to the national spatial strategy, regional planning guidelines, river basin management plans and policy considerations in respect of housing strategies, strategic development zones and water quality plans. To what national spatial strategy will the plan have regard?
On the quality of drinking water and the national spatial strategy, I earnestly request that the Minister of State convey my deep concerns to the Minister for Health on water fluoridation, an issue that will come to haunt this Government or one of its successors. For the past 30 years, successive Governments have kicked water fluoridation to touch. At some stage, to use rugby parlance, it will be necessary to call in the TMO - television match official - to take a second look at the issue. This may result in our policy on water fluoridation being subject to significant change. I do not intend to speak ad nauseam on the issue or repeat my earlier comments. As a layperson, I have deep concerns, as do many others, about water fluoridation. The practice is no longer popular and the excuse offered by the Minister for Health for continuing with it is unsatisfactory. When the issue was debated in the Seanad some months ago many Senators expressed concern about current policy. I ask the Minister of State to convey these concerns to the Minister for Health.
It is not that we are stuck for water but that our management of the water system has been extremely poor historically. It will take at least 30 years to perfect the system, by which point Dublin, which is running out of water, may have to consider desalination or more drastic options.
The water services strategic plan may cover a period of 25 years. The Minister of State spoke of public private partnerships during our previous discussion. Will he elaborate on the Government's thinking on the role of public private partnerships in the water system? Does it envisage investment in the system by private capital investment companies? Is it possible that such private involvement could give rise to additional charges, similar to the additional tolls levied on motorists as a result of public private partnerships in the roads? Is there a danger that additional costs will arise for consumers in certain areas where capital investment, for example, in a water treatment plant, is provided under a public private partnership or will the cost be borne by Uisce Éireann as a semi-State company? Companies involved in such partnerships expect a return on their investment.
The Minister of State did not answer my question on the projected level of capital investment in the water system. Have projections been done on capital costs? In our discussion on the previous section we heard that €600 million will be needed annually. What level of capital investment is envisaged in the years ahead? Has the Department projected the costs of such investment, including any interest payments that may accrue under public private partnership arrangements?
I concur with Senator O'Donovan's comments on the serious issue of water fluoridation. It is vital that people have confidence in the quality and safety of drinking water. I understand the reasoning behind the decision to add fluoride to the water supply in the past. I have been corresponding with the Minister for Health on this issue for the past year. A number of jurisdictions have discontinued the practice of water fluoridation as a result of health concerns. For this reason, it would be timely to carry out a review of current practice which would examine best international practice, take advice from international agencies and ascertain whether fluoridation is still necessary. Are reasons such as dental hygiene, which were cited in the past for adding fluoride to the water supply, still valid given that most people brush their teeth? I am not an expert or scientist but it is important that people have confidence in the water supply. An independent panel of scientists and experts should be established to examine the issue. Given the growing public concern about water fluoridation, decisions on the issue should not be taken by politicians alone but by independent experts. I support the position taken by Senator O'Donovan on this matter.
I agree with Senators that the issue of water fluoridation needs to be addressed by way of a response from the Department of Health. It is not the job of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to address the issue, however. We accept the recommendations issued by the Department of Health. I will bring the issues Senators have raised to the attention of the Minister for Health and ask him to respond.
The Leader of the House has indicated that the national spatial strategy in this section has the same meaning as it has in the Act of 2000. The strategy essentially provides for joined up thinking for the country. It sets out the locations of growth centres, ancillary centres and areas of development. The plan must be consistent with regional planning guidelines, river basin management plans and must have regard to other policies, including housing policies, that is, where housing will be built, strategic development zones, that is, where industry will be located, and water quality. I do not envisage any issues arising in respect of the plan.
As I indicated, in an ideal world capital expenditure on water should be approximately €600 million per annum.
The Minister of State has not clarified what will be the projected figure.
That is a job for Irish Water. It must consult the local authorities, decide on its strategies, identify priorities and draw up a plan. Once that has been done, the plan must be costed, at which point it will become a public document on which the Oireachtas may comment.
It goes then to the Commission for Energy Regulation which proposes a decision on it. We can all comment on it again at that point. There is accountability and communication in relation to that at all stages. That is a fact. Obviously, the amount of capital the Government puts into water services is a key factor in determining what the cost will be. According to a figure I saw earlier, the Minister, Deputy Hogan, is providing €720 million to local authorities for capital and current expenditure on water services this year. That is one end of it. I hope that answers the Senator's question. I think it does.
No, it does not answer the question I asked about the national spatial strategy. The prompting of Senator Cummins did not deal with the issue either. On page 19 of the Bill-----
The Senator should look at page 20.
I am speaking to the Minister of State. We address our points to the Minister, not to another Senator, even if he is the Leader of the House.
The Senator should read the whole of the Bill.
Senator Cullinane, without interruption.
Section 26(5) provides that "Irish Water shall, when preparing a water services strategic plan ... ensure, as far as practicable, that the plan is consistent with ... the National Spatial Strategy". It refers to "the" national spatial strategy rather than to "a" national spatial strategy. I was not looking for the definition of what a national spatial strategy is. I was asking what national spatial strategy is being looked at. We know the 2002 national spatial strategy was scrapped and that this Government intends to produce some form of new national spatial strategy at some point. The Government is also introducing a fundamental reform of regional and local government. Section 26(5) also refers to "regional planning guidelines". The point I am making is that there will be significant reform in this area, some of which will be good and some of which might not be so good. The reform of regional and local government is coming, as is a new national spatial strategy.
People outside the big urban centres of Dublin, Cork and Galway believe that much of the development that has taken place in recent times, especially since this Government came into office, has been concentrated on the three locations I have mentioned. That is where the Government's strategy is at. That is the Government's notion of a spatial strategy. That raises concerns about other areas that have not benefited from job creation or from State investment generally. Very senior civil servants and local authority personnel in my city of Waterford have expressed genuine concern that the bigger urban centres are getting a disproportionate level of State investment in comparison with cities like Waterford.
We are discussing the development of a long-term strategic plan for water services. Under this Bill, the plan will be based on a national spatial strategy that does not exist and regional planning guidelines which will change in the future. It is quite right for us to raise these issues now. We want to ensure balanced regional development is at the core of all of this. The point I am making is that there must be balance in development right across the board. We know the provision of water is a very important consideration when efforts are being made to attract jobs and investment. As the Leader of the House will know, we are fortunate enough to have first class wastewater infrastructure in Waterford as a result of the forward thinking of the local authorities in the region. I refer especially to the regional authority and to Waterford City Council. There are fears about what will happen when this power is taken from those authorities and given to a central body that will have regard to new plans and new thinking about the development of this country from a spatial strategy perspective. I raised this issue in the context of this genuine concern.
I appreciate that it is difficult to cover everything when so many points are being raised. I asked about a specific aspect of the public private partnership issue.
The Minister of State has mentioned a figure of €760 million.
It seems from my research that there is an indicative figure of approximately €260 million for investment in capital infrastructure for the coming year. As the Minister of State has said, that falls far short of the €600 million figure that was indicated. That is why I am asking about public private partnerships. The Department must have some idea of how much it wants to invest in capital infrastructure next year. Will that investment involve public private partnerships? If so, will there be an extra cost burden that will be of interest to companies that are investing in public private partnerships? If a wastewater treatment system were developed in this way in County Galway, would there be an extra cost for the people using that system because of the fact that it was a public private partnership? Would the entire cost of a public private partnership be borne by Irish Water as a company, with its capital investment taking place in line with its list of priorities? Will the Minister of State clarify whether it is the case that he is talking about public private partnerships?
Does the Minister of State have a figure in mind for how much money he will be looking to raise? I am not looking for specific details regarding the various areas in which it will be spent. The Minister of State must have a ballpark figure. If he has €260 million of Government money to invest, is he looking for matching funding of €100, €200 or €300 million from private sources to help this investment? Surely he will want to front-load that because of the issues we have with our infrastructure. It has been mentioned that there is leakage of 30% to 40% in some areas. The relevant figure in County Kerry is 60%, as the Minister of State has said. He needs to fix the system fairly rapidly. One would imagine the capital investment needs to happen at the front end of the scale. Surely the Minister of State has indicative figures. Surely some research in this regard was done before the Minister of State brought this Bill to the House.
I was glad that Senator Cullinane mentioned the wastewater treatment plant in Waterford, which is among the best in the country. I am proud to have been a member of the council that voted moneys to repay-----
Some of those who are shouting about future thinking now did not show much future thinking at that time.
I am responding to a point Senator Cullinane made under section 26.
Senator Cummins might remember that there was no Sinn Féin councillor on the council at the time.
Senator Cullinane has read as far as page 19 of the Bill. I suggest he might read page 20 as well.
The next page is very important because it looks to the future. Section 26(12) provides that "In this section "National Spatial Strategy" has the same meaning as it has in the Act of 2000". If the Senator had read as far as page 20, he would have known what national spatial strategy was in question.
That does not answer the question at all. I thank Senator Cummins for his unhelpful clarification.
As far as I understand - I stand to be corrected by my two colleagues from County Waterford - Waterford County Council supplies the water to Waterford city. I think it comes from outside the city of Waterford.
It comes from Adamstown in County Wexford.
The wastewater plant is on the other side of the city.
I am talking about the wastewater services that are supplied by the county council.
That is an example of joined-up thinking. One sees public private partnerships everywhere one goes. There are design, build and operate facilities throughout the country. I understand the major supply for Limerick city comes from a place called Clare Hall just outside the city. I stand to be corrected on that. I do not think there is anybody here from County Limerick. Perhaps I have the wrong location. It is a design, build and operate facility and is managed by a private company. There are many reasons we should have public private partnerships. We should get private money into our infrastructure. They put up the capital. They may design it. They may even run it for us. That is good and very efficient. It works extremely well. The Senator's real question relates to what happens to the cost of that. All the water infrastructure costs will transfer to Irish Water. In other words, it will not be an extra bill for people in Waterford or Kerry. It will relate to the total charge. It will all be put together into one pot called Uisce Éireann. There will be one charge for water, regardless of where one lives.
Senator Cullinane also spoke about regional development. In many parts of the country, there are ghost estates of houses that nobody is ever going to live in. These unsuccessful developments took place because councils decided during the boom to give planning permission for houses and other facilities that were impractical and did not make sense. Thousands of acres of land were rezoned to facilitate the planning permissions which were given by county councils. Much of that land has since been dezoned because it is clear the land in question is never going to be developed. There is a responsibility on councils to have regard to their own development plans, to regional plans and to the national spatial strategy. Such joined-up thinking is needed if we are to get our developments right. I hope that answers the Senators' questions.
That raises another issue. If a foreign direct investment company wants to base itself in a town like Castlebar, which has been mentioned to me, the council currently has the power to say this is a very important project and that it wants to ensure the water treatment system and so on is up to scratch. If something like that happens now or if a county council wants to build an estate or develop an area in a town, will the council have to go to Uisce Éireann and get permission to install the water infrastructure as part of its county development plan?
Will it be the case that they will not be masters of their own destiny regarding how they want to develop their own areas because it will be up to Uisce Éireann to tell them it is to invest in the infrastructure? If, on the other hand, it says it is not going to make the investment because it has other priorities that county or city council will have to wait or put its plans on hold.
The best example I can give the Deputy is that of Intel. It has given €32 million to the local authorities to provide the water supply it will need for the continuity of its development and projects in Leixlip. Major multinationals are very proactive because they need absolute security of supply and they are making a very significant contribution. It is not that Uisce Éireann will say that it will not let Intel in here or somebody else in there. It is joined-up thinking that works. The other reason we need to have a proper water system is because we will be water-rich compared to other countries. Half of the world will have a water drought in 20 years time. We must be on top of the process and the facilities. I hope the answers I have given the Senator are helpful. Yes, we want private investment, public private partnerships, industries to invest and industries like Intel to come with their plans. We would be very happy to facilitate them.
I appreciate that. It is very important that we are able to tease these things out. Certainly, Intel is one example but it is probably the biggest company we have so it will get whatever it needs from an infrastructural perspective. I would be more worried about companies under the auspices of Údarás na Gaeltachta which would be based in a Gaeltacht area. It might be a fish processing plant on the western seaboard where you need a proper wastewater treatment plant. It could normally apply to Galway County Council and it might have been seen as a priority for those areas. I am afraid that under Uisce Éireann, we will have the IDA model of development where everything is based around the big cities and when it comes to something like a peripheral, rural or Gaeltacht area, it will be much harder to get the type of development one is looking for.
I hear what the Senator is saying.
Question put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 12.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Landy, Denis.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
Níl
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Mark.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- Power, Averil.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators Denis O'Donovan and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 27
Government amendment No. 55:
In page 20, to delete lines 35 to 37 and substitute the following:
“(2) The investment plan first made after the transfer day shall apply in respect of the period commencing on the date of the making of the plan and ending on 31 December 2015.”.
This section provides that Irish Water shall prepare investment plans setting out where it considers infrastructure is necessary for the effective performance of its functions. In developing the investment plans Irish Water shall take account of the water services strategic plan prepared under section 26 and a range of other policy considerations, including local area plans, regional planning guidelines, strategic development zones. Before preparing an investment plan, Irish Water shall be required to consult with the EPA regional bodies in respect of whose functional area the investment plan is likely to apply and each planning authority in respect of whose functional area the investment plan is likely to apply. The first investment plan shall be prepared for two years after the transfer date. Further investment plans shall be for durations to be determined by the CER.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 21, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“(g) each local authority submissions in which the investment plan relates.”.
This amendment relates to giving councils and councillors a statutory role in submitting specific plans to Irish Water for investment proposals in their areas. This will be in addition to Irish Water having to take account of local area plans, development plans and regional planning guidelines. It is a reasonable amendment. The Minister of State has already given a clear commitment to consultation with local councils and the right of representation by public representatives. I await his response.
I support the amendment. We have had some discussion with the Minister on this point. The section relates to the investment plans and it follows on from the water services strategic long-term plan which will be required. Irish Water will have to have regard to its strategic plan and to local authorities, the Environmental Protection Agency, regional planning guidelines and strategic development zones.
I have a difficulty with all these sections. It is not the level of consultation because consultation with local authorities is a good provision. The Bill provides for the level of consultation when investment plans are being made. It refers to the water services strategic plan, any river basin management plans, any local area plans, any development plans within the meaning of the 2000 Act - which Senator Cummins has pointed out covers the national spatial strategy - any regional planning guidelines, any strategic development zones within the meaning of the Act, each regional body and planning authority. These provisions and the level of consultation are welcome. However, I am still unsure how Irish Water will deal with all that information once it is available to it. Once the information has been collated and the consultations with the local authorities have been concluded and once the local authorities have set out their priorities, the Bill does not determine what guidelines will be followed by Irish Water when deciding which area will be targeted for investment. Is the Minister purposely not being prescriptive and leaving it entirely to Irish Water? Irish Water must determine where investment should be made and what criteria it should follow and also take account of the planning guidelines, spatial strategies and the local government plans. It has to decide where the money and the investment goes. If I read it right I am not sure whether the time period is every two years.
The amendment is specific and the Senator is speaking outside the scope of this amendment. The Senator is speaking on the section.
Not really. The amendment deals with local authority plans. My point is that this will determine the investment plan. My reading of the Bill is that the first investment plan will be after the transfer date and will be for a two-year period. Will it be yearly after that or every two years? How will that work out in terms of the investment plan?
The two-year period is the first plan and then I presume it will be reviewed every five years. It will be tied into the river basin management plans. I will speak to the amendment to make the point that the amendment is unnecessary as the provision is contained in the section.
Irish Water must consult with local authorities. As such, the amendment is unnecessary.
Is the amendment being pressed?
No. I am prepared to accept the Minister of State's good faith, as he clarified the point.
No, on the consultation with the local authorities.
The Minister of State gave an assurance.
It would not make sense if Irish Water did not consult. There would be no point in going through this process if it was just going to be thrown in the fire afterwards.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 21, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
"(g) the published capital project appraisal procedures of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.".
This week, the Government will publish its medium-term strategy. I hope that one of the strategy's elements will be to secure the proper evaluation of large public capital projects. We have a tradition of not doing so. In fact, we used to boast that our public capital programme was twice the EU average. If one invests in a cavalier approach, one ends up with our debt problem.
The Department of Finance has an evaluation section. We must be able to illustrate to society as a whole, which will be the investor in these capital projects, that we have made some attempt to comply with guidelines and estimate the returns. We have the so-called edifice complex, that is, building in the mistaken view that it is a large multiplier. The Minister for Finance disproved that complex for us last week.
Spending Departments will just keep on spending, but capital guidelines should be observed and adhered to. As it involves the use of public money, my amendment No. 58 would require the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform to be involved. This is sensible, and we are paying the price for not doing so previously. Large capital projects must be carried out in a way that makes efficient use of resources.
I do not support these amendments, but they raise an important question about capital projects and investment plans. Perhaps I am wrong and the Minister of State might correct me, but my understanding of commercial water rates is that they pay for the full cost of water in and water out. If it is the case that domestic users must eventually pay for the full cost, will the Government subvention for capital investment be reduced over time? Will there always be some level of Government subvention towards capital funding?
Many issues arise. In a number of our previous discussions with the Minister of State, he discussed the borrowings that Irish Water would undertake. Money will be acquired through various financing streams. Is it envisaged that the Government's investment in capital investment will eventually be reduced or removed and that the full costs will be passed on to others? That would be a concern.
As the capital guidelines set by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform already apply to the semi-State sector, Irish Water must comply with them.
Many issues have been raised this evening, but I am not quite clear about how Senator Cullinane's point refers to this Bill specifically.
I might revert on the section.
I thank the Minister of State for informing me that he is already in touch with the Minister concerned. It is reassuring and I am indebted to him for his clarification.
Is the amendment being pressed?
No. The Minister of State has addressed it adequately.
Question proposed: "That section 27, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 58 not moved.
My point is that the investment plan will be predicated upon whatever Irish Water has at its disposal to invest in capital projects. I will not go over the question of how it will decide which projects get what, but will Irish Water decide how much capital investment to make annually and will it receive a subvention? According to the figures the Minister of State has provided, central government provides approximately €240 million to local authorities for capital investment. I am sure this approach will continue in the early stages following Irish Water's establishment. We are told that the commercial sector pays the full cost for water in, water out and capital investment. Logically, domestic users will inevitably begin paying for that full cost after a time. Is this the logic of setting up Irish Water and giving it control over capital investment? Is it envisaged that the money provided by central government to local authorities for capital investment will be replaced over time by Irish Water charging domestic and commercial customers and undertaking borrowings? At some point, will central government stop funding Irish Water's capital investment or will there always be an element of central government funding that would then form part of investment plans? A lack of subvention for capital funding would determine the level of charges that customers would need to pay in the long term. I am concerned about where this might be heading.
This issue has been raised with me by the members of various local authorities. We might clarify the situation, as even at this stage with the hand-over imminent there appears to be significant confusion at that level about capital funding.
My understanding is that certain local authorities are charging for commercial water usage through water rates and development levies, whereas their capital funding for the domestic sector is provided by the Exchequer. The Minister of State indicated that service level agreements generally last for 12 years and that he would table amendments on the matter tomorrow. In some cases, however, there could be agreement on making hand-overs sooner. As such, what will be the practical effect on capital investment? How and when will the hand-over of the budget for capital investment in commercial and domestic projects be managed in, for example, County Galway? The situation is unclear. We know that there will be a 12-year service level agreement, possibly from January onwards, but how will this affect projects that are already in train? Having spoken with the directors of services in certain local authorities, I understand that there has been little discussion of this topic and that there is significant confusion about when Uisce Éireann will take over vis-à-vis service level agreements from local authorities.
Not to labour the point, but I will ask about the same issue in a circular fashion. Can I take it that all of the money raised from water metering and charges, both commercially and domestically, will be ring-fenced for the improvement of our water infrastructure? To follow on from the comments of my Sinn Féin Party colleague, does the Minister of State envisage that the Irish Water's income will make it self-sufficient in ten or 20 years' time and that it will not need a buffer from central government?
I do not have all of the answers. No more than anyone else, I do not have a crystal ball. Commercial water rates to local authorities currently amount to approximately €200 million per annum.
That is significantly less than the total amount due. Therefore the issue is that as the economy improves and businesses become more sustainable, there will be more and more money coming in. That revenue will naturally increase as businesses improve.
Is it not possible to say what will happen in the future but it is the Government's absolute intention to provide for State support. Section 29 sets out the mechanism for this support to be provided, as it allows for grants to be paid by the Minister. The empowerment is there and it is our intention that will continue.
As regards all the other issues, I am not quite clear what the heads of various local authorities are telling the Senator, but an audit is being conducted of each local authority's water assets. The audit will include the location of the asset and what liabilities are attached, as well as whether there is money and planning permission for improving such assets. All the sums have to be done concerning each local authority's water assets. Notwithstanding the fact that the law will allow for a transfer of the assets from 1 January, they will not be transferred until the Minister signs the order. Therefore there is accountability and transparency about who is responsible, who owns the asset, when it will be transferred and the associated costs. They will have to work out that operational matter but we will continue to put State capital expenditure into Irish Water. There is no doubt about that and the Act allows that to happen. As the economy improves and more businesses come on stream, money from commercial companies will increase. As the Senator said earlier, Uisce Éireann has the capacity to borrow on private markets. In addition, people can come in and do a DBO if needed, so the system is flexible. I hope that type of investment flexibility will continue.
I am sorry but I think the Minister's response raises more questions than it answers. If the Minister does not know where this is all going in the long term, then who does? He is introducing the Bill and he is charged with having that long-term vision of how all of this will work out. It is not about having a crystal ball, it is about having a vision and a policy analysis of the long-term logic of introducing water charges and, especially, establishing Irish Water. The only reason we currently have subvention from central Government for the provision of water is because we do not have domestic water charges. If only commercial entities benefited from water there would be no State investment because the full cost of the charge is both in and out and, as I understand it, capital investment is passed on to the commercial user. Is that the logic of this Government? Apart from the conservation arguments put forward for water charges, the Minister of State also keeps telling us that this is a European policy and we are one of the few countries in Europe that does not have such charges.
We are the only OECD country that does not.
Yes but the Minister of State's point is also that Europe is putting pressure on us to introduce water charges.
The charges have already been agreed.
I am not disagreeing with any of that, I am just saying that is the logic of it. Their logic is that the full cost should be passed on to what they would see as the consumer and customer. We are trying to establish if the full cost also includes capital investment. The only reason why we have any capital investment from the State at this point in time is because we do not have domestic water charges. We are not asking the Minister of State to produce a crystal ball; we want a straight answer to a straight question. If we bring in water charges - and we will - and both domestic and commercial users are paying for the service, will it be the case over time that any capital investment from central Government will then begin to disappear? Will it be replaced by increased charges and borrowings, or however Irish Water gets the money to invest in water infrastructure? In fact, we will not see very much investment at all from the State. That seems to me to be the logic of where all this is going. I would be even more worried, however, if the Minister of State cannot see that or tell us about it, given that he is introducing the Bill. I do not know if the Minister of State understands the point I am making.
Then he might be able to answer the question.
I have listened to everything that has been said, but it is such a rounded question. It was when Senator Cullinane referred to a vision and policy for the management of water that I felt I had to say something about this. This is a planned and programmed vision for water. As the Minister of State said, we are the only country in Europe without water charges, so we are not reinventing the wheel.
I will bow to the Senator's wisdom.
The Minister of State did not answer the question I asked.
Does an tAire Stáit have anything further to offer?
I have nothing further to offer. I think I have answered all the questions.
The Minister of State has not answered them.
Is section 27, as amended, agreed to?
Question put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 21; Níl, 11.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Landy, Denis.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
Níl
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Mark.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- Power, Averil.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators David Cullinane and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 28
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 21, lines 33 to 35, to delete all words from and including "Minister," in line 33 down to and including "Reform" in line 35 and substitute "the Houses of the Oireachtas".
In the interests of democratic accountability it is of vital importance from our perspective that any decisions concerning Irish Water would go before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Section 28 as drafted is standard provision in legislation which provides for ministerial approval of borrowing by a semi-State organisation. Accordingly, the borrowings of Irish Water are subject to the consent of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government as the Minister with responsibility for water services and of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, as the Minister with responsibility for Bord Gáis Éireann of which Irish Water is a subsidiary.
The Bill provides that Irish Water can borrow up to €2 billion. I believe it is important that the Oireachtas would be consulted on something as fundamentally important as this, which is essentially the purpose of the amendment. I assume the Minister of State will not be accepting the amendment and would like to press it.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 60 cannot be moved as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.
Amendment No. 60 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 28 stand part of the Bill."
While amendment No. 60 was ruled out of order, I wish to deal with the substance of it in discussing the section. Sinn Féin is opposed to the proposal to allow assets to be used as collateral by Irish Water in the event that it wishes to borrow money. In the first instance these are public assets that belong to the people of the State. If Irish Water was to borrow against assets that belonged to the State, those assets would effectively be for sale. We would see this as a stepping-stone to the privatisation of Irish Water, with which we disagree.
I know the Minister of State will say that is not the case. However, we can only point to the example of refuse collection. Local authorities provided that service in the past just as they provide the service of water to households. When refuse-collection charges were first introduced there was a certain subvention from central government. That was reduced over time and eventually the full cost was passed on to the customer. As we know, that service was eventually privatised across all local authorities. We are concerned that the same will happen with Irish Water. If we allow assets that belong to the people to be used as collateral by Irish Water to borrow money, that would be the slippery slope to privatisation. We oppose section 28 on those grounds.
A later Government amendment clarifies the issue of privatisation.
That amendment makes it clear that one share shall be owned by Irish Water and the remaining shares shall be divided between the Departments of the Environment, Community and Local Government and Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. Neither Minister can dispose of his or her share. We addressed this on Second Stage and I made it clear in a previous debate that there will not be privatisation of Irish Water. The sale of any asset is already prohibited in existing law, but we are putting this into the Bill to copperfasten the view we all hold - Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour - that it cannot and will not be privatised. I would have no worries on that. On that basis I urge the Senator to support our later amendment.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 29
Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 have been ruled out of order.
Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 not moved.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 22, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
“(c) must have support of both Houses of the Oireachtas,”.
This is again about democratic oversight and accountability. No money or grants should be provided to Irish Water without the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. It is not good governance that the Minister would have sole discretion when it comes to the provision of money or grants. We believe that the democratically elected representatives of both Houses should also have a say. Ultimately this is public money and we are the guardians of money. We should have the final say when public money is being given to Irish Water. Our amendment seeks to strengthen democratic accountability and recognise the role responsibility of Members of the Seanad and Dáil in giving public money to Irish Water.
Section 28 provides that the Minister may provide grants to Irish Water or to the Commission for Energy Regulation. Section 28(1) provides that these grants will be out of money provided by the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas has a vote in the budget so Senators have a direct say. The money cannot be passed if the Oireachtas does not agree to it and the amendment is unnecessary on those grounds.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 64 not moved.
Amendment No. 65 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 65 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 29 stand part of the Bill."
The issue of water harvesting needs to be considered. I recently saw that a new school building incorporated in its design the notion of water harvesting. In future strategic planning the Minister and Irish Water should be very cognisant of the harvesting of water for schools and hospitals for use in the flushing of toilets etc. - obviously not for drinking. There is great potential in that area. With the way that climate is changing Ireland seems to be getting more intense rainfall and, in this summer in particular, long periods of dry weather. We should not close off any area such as the harvesting of water. It is like the fluoridation debate - we should keep an open mind on it.
We should encourage water harvesting pilot projects even in local authority estates where there is housing for the elderly, etc. Even if we harvested only 20% of rainwater and put it to proper use it would reduce the pressure on, in particular, the cities where we have a big problem. I ask the Minister of State for his views on the matter. I will not push the issue to a vote but it should not be ignored in the broad thrust of saying "this is the way we are going". With climate change we do not know what the future holds. Some experts believe we will get very long periods of drought even in Ireland and then when we get the rainfall it will be very intense. We will need to ensure that when the rain falls it does not just flow into the Irish Sea or the Atlantic Ocean.
The amendment that was ruled out of order deals with an area we have touched upon without going into any detail, which relates to the water conservation measures that could be put in place. If certain schemes are to be introduced, such as support for domestic water harvesting or the replacement of old toilet cisterns with dual function ones, who will give the grant aid towards those? The Bill is predicated on the assumption that water metering should reduce consumption. However, the international data do not necessarily back that up. The UK Environment Agency has highlighted that consumption in England, where water metering has been in place for many years, is at 158 litres per head per day. In Wales it is at 141 litres per head per day. The Dublin water supply report for 2008 indicated consumption at 148 litres per head per day. Consumption even in areas of England where metering has been introduced, is higher than in Dublin where we do not have metering. So there needs to be a focus, as we have contended since the beginning of the debate, on other conservation issues.
Will any of the money that Uisce Éireann will raise through water metering go to grant aid the conservation measures envisaged or will that grant aid come from the Department? If so is it coming from the general Department budget and therefore funded by the general taxation through PAYE, VAT, etc.? Is specific grant aid for these measures coming from a separate pot as opposed to the money collected by Uisce Éireann?
I support Senator Ó Clochartaigh. Regardless of one's view on water charges, we all accept that water conservation is very important. We need to do whatever we can to encourage people to conserve water. Undoubtedly we lose a considerable amount of money on water that is wasted.
It is a precious resource that costs money to treat and so on. There are two ways in which one can deal with this, the first of which is to deal with it at planning stage for new builds, whereby one encourages, for example, auto-flush toilets, rain and wastewater harvesting and all the sensible things one should be doing. However, where buildings are already in place, be they business premises, domestic dwellings or whatever, one should then provide grant aid and assistance to those who wish to conserve water but who may not have the money to invest in upgrading their houses in the case of domestic properties or their business premises with water conservation measures such as rain harvesting, grey water harvesting or other measures one can take within a building, such as auto-flush toilets for taps and so on. It would be useful for the Government to come up with grants and initiatives that would support conservation because this certainly would help the Government to sell this measure, which will be a difficult task as it is. Notwithstanding my opposition to charges, I would support fully any measures the Government might introduce that would help people to conserve water. It would be an act of good faith on the part of the Government were it able to point out, during the passage of this Bill, what type of grant schemes might be available in the future to households to help them to conserve water. I refer in particular to older houses in which it is known system problems exist. If such households upgrade their systems, will grant support be given? I reiterate Senator Ó Clochartaigh's point on the question of who would actually give such grant support and from where would such money come. These are important issues that should be teased out at this point.
Obviously, there are clear environmental and economic benefits that can accrue from reducing demand for water and the subsequent and expensive treatment of raw water for human consumption. Large-scale rainwater harvesting systems, as Members already have mentioned, already are used by some schools, factories and other buildings and have been incorporated into a number of private developments. The Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2011 amended the planning regulations to facilitate rainwater harvesting in agricultural buildings and so on. There are no grants for rainwater harvesting and nor will there be, given the present economic circumstances. The introduction of water meters and charges based on usage will provide an economic incentive for households to consider investing in a rainwater harvesting system. I studied some of the relevant literature myself last night and it is easy to have rainwater harvesting incorporated into new buildings when one is building. As for retrofitting, one can get a water butt for €40 from Dublin City Council. This means that for €40, a homeowner can buy a rainwater harvesting facility that can store water and which can then be used for different uses in the home.
I have not read the paper to which Senator Ó Clochartaigh referred. However, all the information I have received from all sources indicates the opposite, which is that the introduction of meters significantly reduces the demand for water. Everything I have read everywhere indicates this but if the Senator can share that information with me afterwards, I certainly will check it out.
It certainly is new information-----
Sinn Féin has very good researchers.
----- that meters encourage extra use, rather than reducing it. In essence, while there will not be grants for rainwater harvesting, there will be every incentive to reduce one's water consumption because one will be paying for what one uses. Therefore, it makes a great deal of sense to cut back and cut down. The reduction in demand also will have an impact on costs and for capital costs for improvements and so on. As for the averages that I have read in the literature, I have not seen a figure of less than 12% anywhere but I have seen much higher figures. For example, in the west of Ireland, I have seen figures as high as 70%. In Cavan-Monaghan, group water schemes have conserved approximately the same amount and, consequently, there are significant savings to be made.
On the section, I wish to express my misgivings about the Minister funding both Irish Water and the commission itself. The section states "The Minister may, for the purposes of this Act and subject to such conditions as he or she may determine, make grants out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas to ... Irish Water, or ... the Commission". My concern is that the commission is meant to be the referee between an extremely powerful water company and the individual consumer. I wish to avoid a dependency culture in regulatory agencies and the fear that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Most sectoral regulators funded by the producers' responsible Ministers do not function very well in Ireland. They tend, as I noted previously, to be captured and a reform that might be considered in the future is that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform should become the funding Minister for regulatory agencies. This is reform is badly needed as such regulators tend to be captured and do not represent the consumer. If they are funded by the Minister, they become dependent on him or her and will not act independently. This substantially has been their track record and consumers are not protected. While I will not push my opposition to this section, it is worth stating that checks and balances are needed in this regard and the funding by the Minister of a body that is supposed to tell one whether the Minister is being efficient strikes me as not being the way to do this. It has not been a success in so many other fields.
For the Senator's information, this is purely an interim measure and it is not intended that this will continue for any length of time.
I thank the Minister of State.
The Minister of State is being somewhat short-sighted in respect of the availability of grants because the logic of his remarks on water charges is they are being introduced to ensure that - as he would perceive it - people will act more responsibly in how they use water. There is a range of different reasons the Government is introducing water charges but the Minister of State has used the conservation argument as one such reason. People are then, to use the Minister of State's language, incentivised to be more productive as to how they use water. He then makes the argument that people can save money by investing in rainwater harvesting-----
Members have heard this before about 40 times.
Senator Cullinane, without interruption.
I do not care how many times the Senator has heard it. However, Members have not received the right answer.
It does not make any more sense through repetition.
Can we have Senator Cullinane without interruption?
It still does not make sense.
I am sorry if democracy is a bore to the Senator-----
The Senator keeps repeating himself.
----- but these points have not been raised. I am responding to-----
Can we have Senator Cullinane without interruption?
First, I do not care what Senator Keane thinks about what I am saying. I am addressing my points to the Minister of State and to him only.
The Senator should speak to this section of the Bill.
Absolutely. I will respond again to what the Minister of State said and simply am setting out the logic for his benefit. He states that he wishes to incentivise people to conserve water and use it more appropriately and that charging for it is one mechanism that will do this. This in turn will incentivise people to then invest in technologies, be they automatic taps with sensors, auto-flush toilets, rainwater harvesting and so on. The Minister of State asserts this would be a good thing but he will not provide grant aid to them to do it. My point is that some people would like to be able to invest in such technologies and to avail of the savings but do not have the money to invest. Were grant aid available to them, it would save everyone money because, to follow the logic of the Minister of State's argument, it will save money. However, he is not prepared to help those people who will not be in such a position. Low-income families will be faced with water charges and despite my opposition to the charges, if they are introduced people will be faced with paying them. However, they will be faced with not having the technologies that would help them to conserve water and not having the money to invest in them. It is short-sighted to state this will not be done because the money simply is not there. That is the wrong approach to take and I believe it will have a more negative impact on low-income families.
I apologise to the Minister of State but as I hope to wrap it up on this section, I wish to take Senator Ó Clochartaigh.
I will go further by stating I was absolutely astounded by the Minister of State's answer.
The Senator should not be.
Perhaps I should not be, in the knowledge the Government is led by Fine Gael.
Can we keep the debate to the section?
The Minister has been stating throughout that the issue has been about the conservation of water. However, the Minister of State's comments show this Bill is a complete charade for the purpose of introducing water charges. He is providing a completely economically illogical argument and I would explain what I mean by this. As outlined by Senator Cullinane, the cost of bringing in water conservation measures surely would save money. Has a cost-benefit analysis been carried out, for example, on an average three-bedroom house that does not have such mechanisms of water harvesting, dual-flush toilets or taps that turn themselves off automatically? Has a cost-benefit analysis been carried out on such a house and how much money would be saved by making the rudimentary small changes that would be needed? I imagine the cost of so doing is quite small.
If the Government cannot give a grant would it not make sense, during the initial years, for somebody who is strapped for cash to make the improvements but receive a rebate on his or her water bill instead of paying money to Uisce Éireann? That would improve the cost of the measures. Has the Department carried out a cost benefit analysis of how much money can be saved nationally by implementing such a scheme?
I ask the Minister of State to clarify how much has been spent on installing water meters. It is somewhere in the region of €300 million. Why was €10 million or €15 million of that sum not put aside to grant aid water conservation?
If the Department had really wanted to conserve water it would avail of the restorative measures and saved a fortune in the first couple of years. We have been told that the Department is not even going to take that route which I find astounding and points to this charade of a Bill. The legislation is not focused on water conservation but generating revenue and collecting money for the Exchequer on top of what is already being paid in the general tax system. I hope to God that the Minister of State will reconsider the section for Report Stage. A small investment could provide restorative measures that make a difference.
Has anybody here ever bought a plastic bottle with a litre of water or drink in it? There is a thing called displacement. One can place a full litre bottle of water or stones in a cistern so that less water is needed to fill it but the toilet can still flush. People can do practical things like that to conserve water. In Ireland each person uses the equivalent of two full baths of water every day. To conserve water one can choose to take a shower instead of a bath. One can also buy a rainwater butt for €40 which will lead to significant savings in terms of water conservation. It is not rocket science and people can take simple steps to reduce their water usage.
Senator Ó Clocharthaigh is right that people can consult websites such as Dublin City Council's section called Tips for Taps. There is a lot of proactive information available and much of it is simple and common sense. It is not rocket science.
Perhaps one might have to buy a plastic bottle full of water but that is fair enough. I talked about simple measures but the Senator has chosen to make a mountain out of a molehill. Senator Ó Clochartaigh is right, if we had the best of all worlds we would have the grant system. To put it simply, we do not have the money to do so. I can assure the House that everyone that I have spoken to has confirmed that they will reduce their water usage by a significant amount by using easy, simple and inexpensive activities like the ones I mentioned.
I am flabbergasted by the Minister of State's response.
Can we move on and deal with other amendments?
My party is not talking about the simple practical measures that we are all aware of. We are talking about measures that will involve a cost and require an investment in technologies that save water. If the Minister of State is not prepared to accept that such measures are good then the legislation is not about conservation. He did not mention conserving water, glossed over it and talked about things that do not cost money.
With respect, they are not the issues that we raised.
We talked about sensor based taps, the ones that turn on when one waves a hand in front of them. We also mentioned dual flush toilets, automatic flush toilets and rainwater harvesting. Some of those things cost money and technologies will not be free.
Is the Minister of State saying that they are not a good thing for somebody to do?
No, let me repeat. I suggest that people keep the water tap switched off when brushing their teeth and turn it on when they wish to rinse. Simple measures like that will make a difference. There are hundreds of tips to conserve water. One can have all of the technology in the world but one does not need gadgets to use commonsense. Enough said.
Can we move on with the section? I am conscious that we have other amendments to debate.
I do not want us to move on because the Minister of State has missed the point.
The section deals with grants and not the Minister of State.
With respect, the Minister of State has missed the point that there are water saving technologies available.
Most hotels use water saving facilities.
The Senator has made his point.
Do hotels use technology just for the fun of it?
Hotels use such technologies in order to save money. The Minister of State has arrogantly dismissed such technology.
It is dreadful thing for him to do and tells me that the Bill is not about conservation at all. His dismissive arrogance on the issue is flabbergasting.
The Senator has experienced a rush of blood to the head.
With regard to social economics, it is important to state that the measures mentioned by the Minister of State are practical and can be done. However, the installation of a rainwater harvesting system costs a fair bit of money.
I said that it was expensive to retrofit an existing house.
I said that it was much cheaper to install a rainwater harvesting system when building a new house.
(Interruptions).
A certain amount of water will be allocated to each family or household and I am sure that the Minister of State will confirm the amount at some stage, if we ever get around to it. There is an allocation per household.
A household with a rainwater harvesting system has an automatic advantage because it will not use as much water. The Minister of State has said that certain people can pay to install the system if they have money. That means that the people who do not have the money to do so shall be left at a great disadvantage and will have to use more water that is supplied by the public system being developed. That is an example of great inequity and harks back to the earlier debate on a person's ability to pay. People on a lesser income who cannot afford to install the technology will be left at a disadvantage when compared with the people who have money in their back packet and can pay people to install a system. The latter will not need to use as much water. The Minister of State has been very disingenuous and the Minister and the Government will have to revisit the matter. Perhaps the Minister for Finance will consider introducing tax incentives in his next budget in order to allow people carry out such measures. That is the type of thing that my party has pointed towards.
The Minister of State mentioned school bills. Is the Department in discussion with the Department of Education and Skills about new school builds? Will rainwater harvesting systems be grant-aided through the grants for extensions, new builds, etc.? The measure would ensure that water conservation is part of new builds in the future. What discussions have been held at departmental level? What discussions are taking place at local level? At present not a great amount of local authority housing is being built but there are plans to do more. Are there ongoing discussions with local authorities to ensure that a rainwater harvesting system and other regulations are in place and to install such technology in new builds?
Does the Minister of State wish to respond or shall we move on?
I have been advised that the discussions were ongoing but there is no money to pay for what the Senators want. It is much easier to buy a water conserving tap and install a dual flush toilet in a new build and a retrofit is far more expensive. That is the point I made.
There are websites that can provide information on water conservation. There is a vast number of simple measures that everyone can do that cost very little. Most of them do not cost anything but will still reduce water consumption. The people that I spoke to knew exactly what to do and it is not going to cost them anything.
Question put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 11.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Landy, Denis.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
Níl
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Mark.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- Power, Averil.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators David Cullinane and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh.
Question declared carried.
Progressed reported; Committee to sit again.
