I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Fergus O'Dowd, back to the House. I remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on an amendment on Report Stage, except for the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. In addition, each amendment must be seconded. As amendments Nos. 1 and 6 are related, they may be discussed together.
Water Services (No. 2) Bill 2013: Report Stage
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 6, to delete lines 10 to 13 and substitute the following:
" "excluded provision" means—
(a) section 32(1)(b) (insofar as it relates to the provision, operation or maintenance of storm water sewers),
(b) Part 4A, or
(c) Part 6 (other than sections 91 and 92),
of the Act of 2007;".
These are technical amendments to amend the drafting of the definition of an "excluded provision". Excluded provisions are matters that will not transfer to Irish Water such as rural water, domestic wastewater systems and storm water sewers.
Amendment agreed to.
As amendments Nos. 2 and 28 are related, they may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 7, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
" "employment transfer day” means, in relation to a member of staff of a local authority to whom a designation by that local authority under section 15 applies—
(a) the day on which an agreement first made by the local authority and Irish Water under section 26 ceases to have effect, or
(b) where such agreement is terminated before the period specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of that section or the local authority and Irish Water make a further agreement or agreements under that section, such day as may be specified in writing by the Minister;".
This is another technical amendment to provide that the definition for employment transfer day is included in section 5 which deals with the definitions to be used in Part 2 of the Bill. The "employment transfer day" applies to staff transferring to Irish Water under section 15.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, have been ruled out of order.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, not moved.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 8, line 3, to delete "(other than an excluded provision)" and substitute "(other than an excluded provision and section 22)".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, are out of order.
Amendments Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, not moved.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 9, to delete lines 27 to 29, and substitute the following:
"(2) An order under this section shall designate such property, or such class or classes of property, of a water services authority as the Minister may determine.".
This is a drafting amendment to clarify that a ministerial order under section 12 shall designate such property or such class or classes of property of a water services authority as the Minister may determine.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 35 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 10, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
"(9) That a full and comprehensive table of all monies transferred to and expended by Irish Water for the purposes of this subsection shall be published annually providing a county by county breakdown.".
I know that the Minister of State gave an assurance to my colleague, Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill, that he would take a very serious look at publishing on an annual basis a full and comprehensive table of all moneys transferred to and expended by Irish Water for the purposes of this subsection and providing a county by county breakdown. This amendment seeks transparency. It relates to the transfer of properties from councils or water service authorities to Irish Water and proposes that a comprehensive table of all moneys or infrastructure transferred to and expended by Irish Water for the purpose of the subsection be published annually and a county by county breakdown provided. Given the difficulties that Dublin City Council discovered last night, it is important that this type of transaction be above board and transparent. I would like to hear the Minister of State's views on this amendment.
Is the amendment being seconded?
I second the amendment. We are dealing with the transfer of property of water services authorities to Irish Water. In the context of that particular section and the amendment, we need to raise with the Minister of State the very serious issues raised by the Dublin City Manager regarding the €2 billion worth of assets that will be transferred from Dublin City Council to Irish Water and the very genuine concerns the city manager expressed. Obviously, his core concern was the loss of water services and the ability of that particular local authority to respond to severe weather situations in the future. He is on record as saying operational risks to the city council are very real because of the passage of this Bill. Many of the issues and concerns he raised are very similar to those raised by a number of Senators raised in the past few days in the lengthy debates we had. Many of these issues related to the transfer of assets, properties and liabilities from local authorities to Irish Water. One of the concerns expressed by the Dublin City Manager was that while €2 billion euro worth of assets were being transferred, the €330 million worth of pension liabilities will stay with the local authority. I support the amendment but also oppose the entire section. We had an amendment which sought to oppose the section but which was ruled out of order. The reason was that-----
The amendment is about publishing.
I know that, but there is no point in agreeing to publish annual reports by Irish Water without dealing with the fundamental issue of the transfer of these assets in the first place.
The amendment is only about publishing.
I understand that, but as we only get one chance to come in on the amendment, I will take the opportunity.
The Senator is going outside the scope of the amendment.
I will finish on this point because I would like the Minister of State to respond to it. There is a very real concern that these assets and properties are being transferred over to Irish Water simply to fatten it up as a company that can be eventually sold off and that by just transferring the assets and not the liabilities, it will better position Irish Water to be able to borrow money. This is one of the reasons the assets are being transferred.
The Senator is way outside the scope of the amendment.
We have a duty to put these questions to the Minster of State today, given that the Dublin City Manager was so robust in his criticisms and concerns about this Bill and its implications for services in Dublin and I say for services across the State.
This is quite a good amendment because it is open and transparent and concerns the transfer of assets. In respect of assets, there are many leaky, rusty and lead pipes. I do not know whether one would call them an asset or a liability. One would be hard pressed to look for pipes in assets in the old Dublin city water works as they look. This amendment is quite a good one and the information should be published. Hopefully, the Minister of State will have something good to say about it.
The Dublin City Manager raised a very serious matter today when he said that this transfer had the potential to cause serious financial and operational risks to the council. I agree with the points already made about the transfer of €2 billion worth of assets while leaving the council with the pension liabilities. That is a very serious issue. It is very important that there is transparency in Irish Water. We have put forward a number of serious concerns since this project was first mooted but to hear the Dublin City Manager speak in such stark terms, which is unusual for a public servant, should give all of us pause. For him to warn that the council will not be able to respond to serious weather events means that the Government will not be able to say at any future point that it was not warned about this issue. I urge the Minister of State to reconsider it before it is too late.
Is it appropriate for me to respond to the issues raised?
Yes.
I read the newspapers this morning also. I understand that the Dublin City Manager said the Minister or his Department refused to come. As I understand it, he was advised that the date of the meeting was one where we would be here in the Seanad. Certainly, my officials and I were unable to attend because we had to be here, but we have no problem meeting with and listening to him. That is not an issue.
I will read from the note I have. It may not necessarily be in the order in which the issues were raised but I think they are answered properly. The local authorities operate a public sector defined benefit pay-as-you-go pension scheme. For most of its staff, under the local government superannuation scheme, new entrants go on to the new single public service pension scheme. Therefore, as pension liabilities fall due at the point of retirement, payments are made from annual current expenditure and contributions made by staff averaging about 6%. The staff who currently work in water services in local authorities obviously already have pension entitlements. These are a future liability on the authorities as things stand. However, the Water Services Bill provides a mechanism for the payment to Irish Water by the Minister with the agreement of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform of pension benefits to local authority staff who transfer to Irish Water either now or following the termination of a service level agreement. The service level agreement also provides for the payment by Irish Water of pensions to existing water services pensioners. The only issues arise in the event that a service level agreement comes to an end and the local authority staff working under the agreement do not transfer to Irish Water. In these cases, the liability would rest with the local authority. I stress the next point - the Department has given a commitment to the County and City Managers' Association to keep this under review.
It has given a commitment that individual authorities who do not have the capacity to meet those liabilities will be addressed by an appropriate State subvention. In any case, this will not materialise until the termination of the first service level agreement in 2025.
The Bill provides for the transfer of water service assets to Irish Water. It also provides for the transfer of any loans and liabilities associated with those assets. Since 2009, the Exchequer has provided funding of more than €225 million to Dublin City Council for investment in water services infrastructure in the Dublin region. The Senator commented on the cost of water being higher in Dublin than elsewhere. The Bill provides for the 2013 non-domestic charges in individual local authorities to continue to apply from 1 January 2014 and, as has been agreed by Irish Water and the City and County Managers Association, to continue to be collected by the local authorities on behalf of Irish Water for the first half of 2014, at which stage Irish Water will assume responsibility for collection.
As we have discussed, the Commission for Energy Regulation will approve the new charges to be levied by Irish Water. It is intended that standardised national charges will be in place for domestic consumers when charges commence from quarter four of 2014. I will include provisions for the Government commitment on the free allowance and any other measures to deal with affordable charges which the Government may decide are necessary.
It is intended that the CER will phase in the consolidation of the non-domestic charges currently being charged by the 34 county and city councils. There will not be an immediate change and they will continue to pay the same next year. The phasing in of charges is the fairest approach as some customers will pay reduced rates while others will pay more. It would not be desirable to upset viable businesses. The Government is very conscious of this issue.
The Bill also provides that the CER must perform its functions in a manner that best serves the interests of the customers of Irish Water. Dublin City Council has not seen the final draft of the service level agreement which will be required. The County and City Managers Association, of which Dublin City Council is a member, has negotiated the text of the draft service level agreement with Irish Water.
Dublin City Council's legal advice is that the Bill does not prohibit the sale of Irish Water or its assets. The Bill has now been amended by Government amendment No. 78, which was introduced last night, to ensure neither the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government nor the Minister for Finance can alienate the shares issued to them. The 2013 Act already provides that Bord Gáis Energy cannot alienate its share. The Water Services Act 2007 which will apply to Irish Water once the Bill is enacted, already precludes the transfer of water service assets by Irish Water.
I hope I have clarified the issue for Members.
I ask the Minister of State to speak to the amendment.
The amendment states the funds will transfer, with a full and comprehensive table of all moneys transferred. I understand there will not be any money actually transferred, that any balance will be offset against other charges. Cash transfers will not take place. On the question of transparency, I do not believe this needs to be included in the legislation because the local authority will be clear on the assets being transferred and the Minister will be required to sign a memorandum for each of the assets. A total of €11 billion of assets will be transferred and I am assured by Irish Water that this information will be available on its website. The process will be transparent because the Minister will be required to sign the order; the county councils will know what they are transferring; the information will be available on the Irish Water website. Therefore, I see no issue about transparency and ask the Senator to consider what I have said.
I accept the bona fides of the Minister of State, but, unfortunately, we have learned during the years that unless provisions for the transparency of the process are enshrined in legislation in order that any transfer of property or moneys is in the public domain, I do not accept there will be transparency. In the past 24 to 40 hours we have had an indication from a colleague in the House that he has information about the activities of another organisation which was established by legislation passed in this House. That legislation provided that the organisation would not be transparent and now it is alleged that difficulties have arisen out of that situation. I accept that if it were left to the discretion of the Minister of State he would have no difficulty in ensuring the transparency of the process and making public any transactions. However, they should be compelled by the legislation to do so, in the interests of transparency. I must insist on this point.
I do not see an issue about the transparency of that transfer as it will only happen once. The council, the Minister and Irish Water, will know. I do not see any issue arising. The transfer will not be in cash. If a local authority has a cash fund of lodgments as a result of planning applications and lodgments of cash for water services, this will be kept on the balance sheet of the local authority and it will be part of the arrangements for the service level agreement. No cash will be transferred to Irish Water, Uisce Éireann.
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Mark.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- Power, Averil.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- 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.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Whelan, John.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Averil Power and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Deputies Aideen Hayden and Paul Coghlan.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, are out of order.
(Interruptions).
I ask Senator D'Arcy to resume his seat.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 11, to delete line 2 and substitute the following:
“(b) different contracts or commitments (expressed or implied) to which a water services authority is a party.”.
These are two minor technical amendments to improve the drafting of section 14.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 in the names of Senators David Cullinane, Trevor Ó Clochartaigh and Kathryn Reilly has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 11, line 9, to delete “subsection (1)” and substitute “subsection (2)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 11, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“Liability for loss occurring before relevant day.
15. (1) A claim in respect of any loss or injury alleged to have been suffered by any person arising out of the performance before the relevant day of any of the functions of a water services authority transferred by this Act shall on and after that day, lie against Irish Water and not against the water services authority.
(2) Any legal proceedings pending immediately before the relevant day to which a water services authority is a party arising out of the performance of any of the functions of a water services authority transferred by this Act, shall be continued, with the substitution in the proceedings of Irish Water, in so far as they so relate, for the water services authority.
(3) Where, before the relevant day, agreement has been reached between the parties concerned in settlement of a claim to which subsection (1) relates, the terms of which have not been implemented, or judgment in such a claim has been given in favour of a person but has not been enforced, the terms of the agreement or judgment, as the case may be, shall, in so far as they are enforceable against a water services authority, be enforceable against Irish Water and not the water services authority.
(4) Any claim made or proper to be made by a water services authority in respect of any loss or injury arising from the act or default of any person before the relevant day arising out of the performance of any of the functions of a water services authority transferred by this Act, shall be regarded as having been made by or proper to be made by Irish Water and may be pursued and sued for by Irish Water as if the loss or injury had been suffered by Irish Water.
(5) This section shall—
(a) not apply to a claim for damages in respect of a wrong within the meaning of the Civil Liability Act 1961,
(b) not apply to proceedings brought for the sole purpose of recovering damages, in respect of such a wrong,
(c) in the case of proceedings in respect of such a wrong that are brought for the purpose of recovering damages and other relief, not apply to that part of the proceedings that relates to the recovery of damages, or
(d) not apply to any settlement of a claim or proceedings in so far as it imposes an obligation on a water services authority to make a payment or payments to any person.
(6) In this section “relevant day” means—
(a) in relation to a claim or proceedings in respect of land or other property transferred to Irish Water under section 12 or any contract or commitment relating thereto, the property vesting day appointed for the purpose of the transfer of that land or property,
(b) in relation to a claim or proceedings in respect of a contract or commitment designated under section 14, the day appointed under that section in respect of the contract or commitment,
(c) in relation to a claim or proceedings in respect of the terms and conditions of employment of a member of the staff of a water services authority who—
(i) has been accepted into the employment of Irish Water under section 15, or
(ii) has been appointed to be a member of staff of Irish Water under section 23, the employment transfer day applicable to that member of staff,
and
(d) in relation to any other claim or proceedings, other than a claim or proceedings in respect of—
(i) any land or other property owned by a water services authority,
(ii) any contract or commitment entered into by a water services authority, or
(iii) the terms and conditions of employment of any member of the staff of a water services authority, the transfer day.”.
This amendment provides that certain liabilities for loss occurring prior to the transfer day shall be against Irish Water, not a local authority. This is a limited transfer for existing claims and proceedings. Certain claims and-or pending proceedings will remain with the local authorities, including claims for the recovery of damages.
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 12.
Tá
- 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.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
Níl
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- Power, Averil.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators David Cullinane and Kathryn Reilly.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 20 to 22, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 20:
In page 11, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“Licences under section 16 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977
16. A licence issued under section 16 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977 and in force immediately before the transfer day shall, on and after that day, continue in force for the unexpired period of the licence as if granted by Irish Water.”.
These amendments are to provide for the transfer to Irish Water of licences and authorisations granted through a water services authority. Amendment No. 20 provides that any licence issued by a local authority under the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977 shall continue in force. Amendment No. 21 provides for the transfer of licences under certain enactments, namely, the Foreshore Act 1933 and the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations 2007. Licences issued to a local authority shall transfer to Irish Water. Amendment No. 22 provides that the Minister may provide for the transfer of other categories of licences or authorisations by order.
These are substantial amendments to be brought forward at this stage. Sinn Féin is uncomfortable with some of the amendments brought forward today, given the substantial discussion we had earlier in the week on these issues. It is difficult to have any confidence in this Bill, given the haphazard manner in which it is being put together and because the issue of licences is being addressed only at this stage. In the light of comments made by certain city and county managers in recent days, there are grave concerns about the implications of the transfer of licences to Irish Water and so on.
I appeal to the Minister of State to withdraw the Bill. We need more time to consider it and to discuss the implications of this provision with the City and County Managers Association. This legislation is being rushed through without proper scrutiny, which is not a good way to enact legislation. Grave mistakes could be being made. With respect to the Minister of State, it is difficult to have confidence in this Bill. Sinn Féin will be voting against these amendments. In the light of the fact that we only had sight of these amendments over an hour ago, it is difficult to know what it is the Minister of State is asking us to sign up to and what will be the implications of them under certain other enactments.
It is difficult for Government and Opposition Senators to support amendments brought forward at this stage. We got sight of many of these amendments only in the past couple of hours. This is not a good way of progressing legislation. Leaving aside the haphazard manner in which the Bill is being progressed through this House, Sinn Féin had core concerns about the Bill, which concerns have been echoed by a senior official in local government. It is peculiar to say the least and, I believe, unusual for a city manager, in particular one in the capital city, to be so critical of the implications of a Bill that is progressing through the Oireachtas.
The Bill is being rushed through the Seanad in a haphazard manner and, I understand, all Stages of it will be taken in the Dáil. This does not instil confidence in anybody that the Bill will do what is says on the tin. The concerns expressed by Sinn Féin in recent days are genuine concerns, which are now being expressed outside of this House by senior civil servants. This must be a cause of concern for the Minister of State. I agree with Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh that the right thing at this point would be for the Minister of State to withdraw the Bill. This legislation should not be rushed through the Seanad or the Dáil until there has been full consultation with all the stakeholders, including local authorities. I have no doubt we will have to come back to the Bill in the future.
I am happy that Senator Cáit Keane is shaking her head because when issues arise and they will, we will be able to remind her that we raised these issues 30 or 40 times. I am glad that we have raised them repeatedly.
The problem is we were not listened to. I believe the Government will be forced to listen to people outside this House, including senior officials who are echoing many of the concerns we raised. Such is the seriousness of the concerns being raised that the Government should suspend the passage of the Bill.
I have confidence in how it is being done.
Senator Cáit Keane to continue, without interruption.
It is not what Senator David Cullinane said. The County and City Managers Association was involved in the negotiations. The manager who spoke out today is part of that association, which agreed and negotiated the service level agreements. A protocol is laid down with chief executive, managers and everything else. The time for the managers to speak out is when the service level agreement is being negotiated and they should not agree to it if they are not satisfied with it.
I ask the Senator to speak to the amendment.
They are raising genuine issues.
I am giving the facts. A statement of facts is what is needed. It is being suggested the manager did not know what was going on. I do not know who was asleep at the wheel, but it was not the Minister of State.
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 8.
Tá
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Donnell, Marie-Louise.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
Níl
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators David Cullinane and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh.
Amendment declared carried.
Government amendment No. 21:
In page 11, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“Licences and certificates under certain other enactments
17. (1) Any licence granted to a water services authority under section 3 of the Foreshore Act 1933 shall continue in force on and after the transfer day for the unexpired period of the licence as if granted to Irish Water.
(2) Any licence or certificate granted to a water services authority under the Regulations of 2007 shall continue in force on and after the transfer day for the unexpired period of that licence or certificate, as the case may be, as if granted to Irish Water.
(3) Where an application for a licence under section 3 of the Foreshore Act 1933 was made before the transfer day and, immediately before that day, a decision in respect of that application had not been made by the appropriate Minister (within the meaning of the Foreshore Acts 1933 to 2009), then, for all purposes, the application shall be deemed to have been made by Irish Water.
(4) Where an application for a licence or certificate under the Regulations of 2007 was made before the transfer day and, immediately before that day, a decision in respect of that application had not been made by the Agency, then, for all purposes, the application shall be deemed to have been made by Irish Water.
(5) In this section “Regulations of 2007” means the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations 2007 (S.I. No. 684 of 2007).”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 11, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“Other licences, authorisations and permits
18. (1) The Minister may, from time to time, appoint a day by order for the purposes of this section, and different days may be so appointed in relation to—
(a) different water services authorities, or
(b) different relevant authorisations or different classes of relevant authorisation.
(2) An order under this section shall designate such relevant authorisations, or such class or classes of relevant authorisation, as the Minister may determine.
(3) A relevant authorisation—
(a) designated by an order under this section, or
(b) belonging to a class of relevant authorisation designated by such an order, shall continue in force on and after the day appointed for the purposes of this section by that order for the unexpired period of the authorisation as if issued to Irish Water.
(4) In this section “relevant authorisation” means a licence, authorisation or permit (howsoever described) issued to a water services authority.”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Amendment No. 23 in the names of Senators David Cullinane and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 23 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 24, 26 and 27 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 11, line 15, to delete “A local authority may” and substitute “A local authority may,”.
These are technical amendments to clarify the arrangements for the transfer of local authority staff to Irish Water following determination of an agreement under section 26.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 25 in the names of Senators David Cullinane and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
Government amendment No. 26:
In page 11, line 30, to delete “relating to remuneration” and substitute “, including terms and conditions relating to remuneration,”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Government amendment No. 27:
In page 11, line 33, to delete “relating to remuneration” and substitute “, including terms and conditions relating to remuneration,”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Government amendment No. 28:
In page 11, to delete line 40, and in page 12, to delete lines 1 and 2.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 12, to delete lines 5 to 7.
This is one of the few amendments in respect of the water charges section that was not ruled out of order. It seeks to remove completely the definition in this part of the Bill that deals with an approved water charges plan. Essentially, this is Sinn Féin's way of opposing water charges and their introduction again. There have been lengthy debates on this issue and Members were reminded this morning by the Leader that approximately 16 hours were spent discussing the Water Services (No. 2) Bill. However, 16 hours later they still do not know how much water charges will cost householders. I genuinely believe that were the Minister of State, the Government parties and the Labour Party representatives in opposition, were this Bill being brought forward by the previous Government and were they asked to sign up to a Bill that includes water charges without knowing how those charges would be calculated or what they would mean for households, I have no doubt but that they would oppose the Bill on the same grounds as does Sinn Féin.
It is simply not a good way in which to deal with legislation. In some respects, it is akin to a car salesman asking people to buy a car by telling them it looks great, has low mileage and will come with a free service - in that the first leak will be repaired - but the prospective purchaser cannot be told how much the car will cost. As I do not believe anyone would buy a car if they had no idea how much it would cost, why should Members support the Bill if they have no idea how much it will cost people? Members could be here for another 16 hours or even 60 days and the Minister of State still would not tell them how much it will cost householders. Either he is not in a position to tell Members or he simply does not know. Moreover, it is unacceptable that the Minister of State would pass the buck and the responsibility for the setting of water charges to the commission. This will create problems in the future and to stick with the car sales analogy, this comes straight from the Arthur Daley school of economics by not telling Members how this will affect people. It is completely unacceptable and I note similar discussions and debates were held when the household charge first was introduced. I recall the Minister of State was sitting in the same chair when Members spoke of the likely degree of opposition among members of the public to the household charge. At the time it was only €100 and Members made the point that once the charge was introduced, it would increase substantially. For the vast majority of households, it is now €300 and it will increase further, as local authorities will be able to increase the charge by a certain percentage - I believe by 15% - after 2015.
It can also be reduced.
Yes, but we all live in the real world, where local authority budgets are being cut. While I would support a cut, it is again unfair to put responsibility back on local government, while the Government is cutting funding to it. However, the point is that it was €100 at the outset but very quickly became €300. This is the real fear people will have in respect of water charges. I have no doubt whatsoever that for the first couple of years, the full cost of water services will not be passed on to customers. The Minister of State will undoubtedly be seeking an easy lead-in and again, it might be a low figure, people will be given a generous free allowance and there will be continued central government subvention into Irish Water. While people might start off on a low rate, their experience of stealth charges is that such charges are introduced on a low rate and then increase continually thereafter. This simply is not good governance or good politics. It is not good for Members to be asked to support a Bill, which at its heart and core pertains to the introduction of water charges, without having a clue as to what level of income the Government seeks to generate in the first instance from the charge and thereafter, how that charge will be calculated. In this context, Members had a lengthy discussion on the issue of ability to pay and whether income will be taken into account but they simply do not know and are clueless in this regard. This is not because of a lack of debate on this issue but because the Minister of State is not in a position, with respect, to give Members the answers to these questions. I do not believe this to be acceptable and for this reason, I will oppose the section by supporting the amendment.
I second the amendment. The definition of approved water charges plan is somewhat of a misnomer when we can see that it is very much a tax on water and on households. In the debate yesterday on the way this charge will be implemented it was stated that this was a regressive tax that does not take into account a family's ability to pay, that grant aid will not be available to people who want to do remedial work and that it will be left to them to put stones in their cisterns, as the Minister mentioned yesterday, to try to reduce the amount of water they are using. This must be seen for what it is, namely, an extra tax on people who are already stretched and this is our way of saying we are unhappy about this plan being introduced in this manner. It has not been thought through. It will not conserve water. The necessary investment in dealing with the leakages will not be put in place, and we will not put in place the remedial measures such as rain water harvesting etc. We have no option, therefore, but to oppose this part of the Bill.
The issue is not about charges; it is already agreed in principle that they will happen. The issue is about a sustainable level of investment in our water infrastructure and how we can modernise our country's Victorian system of water services in terms of some parts of the pipe network, the unaccounted for water, and the inability of local authorities throughout the country to get new synergies to cut their costs by having a regional or even a national approach to all these issues. It is about making Ireland attractive for inward investment and ensuring that companies like Intel will come to Ireland and invest here. It is about making sure that the water supply in cities like Cork, Waterford and elsewhere is improved. It is about stopping the era of contamination in the Senator's county, which experienced cryptosporidium problems that resulted in people in Galway being unable to drink the water from their taps for six months of the year. It is about getting rid of the problems in areas that currently have boil notices. It is about putting a structure in place that is dealt with by one body and done efficiently, effectively and properly. The Senator's arguments, notwithstanding that he continues to make them, are not tangible in terms of improving our economy or ensuring Ireland's future through inward investment in water intensive industries such as pharmaceuticals, agriculture, food and so on. This is a country in which such companies will invest because we will have the infrastructure to meet their needs.
Dublin has a significant problem in terms of water. Nobody knows that better than the current county manager of Dublin, who is quoted in the newspapers today, and the former county manager of Dublin who just happens to be the chief executive of Irish Water. They know exactly the problems. They are involved in all the discussions. I make the point strongly that it is not as if the managers do not know what is going on. The facts are that the consultative group does not have one manager on it; it has two. The City and County Managers Association is involved in every aspect of these changes and proposals and anybody who believes otherwise is not living in the real world.
The question the Senator raises is not the real question. We must have the proper system in place, and that is what we intend to do. I have the vision and the commitment to bring about that change, notwithstanding the difficulties. The Senator asked why I cannot tell him what will be the charges. I can tell him the way the figures will be computed, that they will be discussed in a transparent manner and put out for public debate. The Oireachtas must have a debate on that issue. I can tell him that the water services plan must and will be discussed by each local authority. This is being done in a democratic fashion. There is total transparency and accountability about everything we are doing and as I pointed out yesterday and reiterate now, Members of the Oireachtas, be they in government, in opposition or Independents, have an important role because they can bring everybody before the committees to account, starting with me, the Minister, the officials of the Department, the Regulator, and the representatives of Irish Water. That is where we will see that accountability and transparency. The Senator has a right and a duty to bring people before those committees and to ensure he is satisfied, before a bill is sent to anybody's house, that he has full knowledge in terms of every aspect of his concerns.
What we are doing is creating the framework for calculating the charge. Currently, there are 34 separate systems for calculating, billing and collecting water charges. I stand corrected if I am wrong, but in Wicklow it is €3.50 per metre cubed compared to half that in Kildare. There are different charges for water in different local authorities across the country. We have to address that problem and ensure there is one charge for domestic consumers and that there is a converging of charges for commercial consumers over a period of years. That is what the Commissioner for Energy Regulation will be doing.
Work is under way on consolidating the financial and charging structures that will feed into the development of the first water charges planned by Irish Water. Part of that process is examining what the plans will be, what will be done in the first and second phases, the outstanding liabilities and commitments, what the Environmental Protection Agency wants, what needs to be improved, the health and safety issues, what the consumer can bear, and what the company can raise privately. All of those issues have to be considered before a figure is decided upon.
The Government is committed to continuing to invest in the infrastructure. There will be a free allowance for every household. There will also be affordability measures for people who have a need for-----
The Minister of State is broadening the scope of the amendment.
I appreciate that, but I am trying to make the point that it will be comprehensive, and all those costs will be included together. The Senator will have the answer to his question when all of those figures are calculated and the analysis is done. It will go before the CER and there will be transparency in terms of that decision making process. Nothing is being hidden. There is nothing in the Bill that is not accounted for, proportionate and focused. The entire process must be seen to be fair.
The Minister of State has rehearsed the chorus we have heard for the past 16 hours, namely, his view of the Bill, to which he is entitled, but we have our view.
(Interruptions).
Senator David Cullinane to continue, without interruption.
I have no doubt that when water charges are introduced, all the Members opposite will be whistling a different tune when they are talking to people on the doorsteps.
To return to the points the Minister of State made, he has said the Bill is about a substantial level of investment in water services. We have seen a cut every year for the past few years in water services. There has not been any substantial level of investment. I do not see how any of that will amount to new investment in water services.
The Minister of State also spoke about a modern and more efficient system of water services yet the city manager of Dublin has said it could damage the council's ability to respond to severe weather events and was likely to cause very significant financial and operational risks to the city council. Those are his words, not mine. I am merely repeating for the Minister of State what one of the senior civil servants and the city manager of Dublin city said. How can the Minister of State square his view that he is creating a modern system of water provision in the State that will be better for users, and that it is about conservation, when he was dismissive yesterday of many of the arguments we put forward on grant aid for some people? I used the word "arrogant" yesterday in my contribution, which I withdraw. It was said in the heat of the debate, which I regret, but I believe the Minister of State was dismissive of the genuine arguments we were putting forward on making grant aid available to people to ensure they can properly conserve water. If the Minister of State was genuinely interested in conservation, he would agree to such measures. When he dismissed these arguments and did not accept the amendments, that tells me this is not about conservation but simply about raising revenue.
The Minister of State also spoke about unaccounted for water. The only way we can deal with unaccounted for water is if we upgrade the system and have significant capital investment in it.
Rather than putting a till on the taps of householders or cash registers outside their doors and spending money on water meters, it would have been much better had the Government used that money to fix the system, which is the point of the amendment.
The Minister of State discussed how water charges would improve the economy. How in God's name can another regressive tax and bill for householders that will disproportionately impact on low income families do that? Let there be no doubt, the very wealthy will be able to invest in all of the technologies we discussed yesterday and will have smaller water bills to pay than low income families who will not be in a position to do likewise. Senators on the other side can yawn, snigger and laugh all they like, but I represent those people on low pay who will find it very difficult to pay another regressive tax that will disproportionately impact on their families.
The Senator-----
(Interruptions).
The Government is dipping into the pockets of people who do not have any money to give. This is unacceptable.
The Minister of State claims we are not asking the real question. In his words, the real question is whether this will improve the quality of water services. He claims nothing is being hidden. He used the word "fair". He stated Irish Water could be discussed in the Oireachtas and that our committees could invite people to attend, but this is the Chamber. This is the Parliament. This is where we should make those decisions. Before we sign up to a Bill that allows for water charges, we should have a clear idea about how they will be calculated. We do not know how. The Minister of State is telling us to pass the Bill first, buy the pig in the poke, and we can debate charges afterwards when it is too late. That is not good enough. I would prefer to avoid a situation in which we would be bolting the gate after the horse had gone. Let us ensure we bolt the gate.
The Senator is making a Second Stage speech.
It would be a much better way to progress this Bill.
Does the Minister of State have anything further to offer?
Perhaps I did not make the issue clear. I will try to clarify it again. The legislation is like a framework for what will happen. Addressing the questions of how Irish Water will operate, what it will do in people's counties and how the regulator will make its decision and compute costs - the regulator is on record as saying it wants to engage proactively - is the role of an Oireachtas committee. Committees are made for these types of investigation, analysis, transparency and accountability. They will do the work and make the recommendations. Obviously, the Senator has an important role in challenging each recommendation.
The problem with improving the water supply is that a significant amount of the unaccounted for water is on the customer's side, for example, inside the garden fence. Metering will identify those leakages and reduce them by at least 15% overall. It is not regressive that people should pay for their water. It is right, proper and fair that the more one uses, the more one pays. People who are sick or on low incomes must be addressed through affordability measures. Everyone will have a basic allowance. There are incentives to reduce water usage and capital costs in that, if water is saved, the same amount of capital will not be necessary for treatment and pumping. I am confident that important new synergies will be created as a result of Uisce Éireann's establishment.
The Senator should not lose sight of one thing, that up to 1,700 people will be employed during the metering process. These will be real jobs for real people. They will be sustainable and important for a short period. There are many pluses to what we are doing.
Deputy Emmet Stagg will be happy the plumbers will be employed.
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Healy Eames, Fidelma.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- 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.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
Tellers: Tá, Senators David Cullinane and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden.
Amendment declared lost.
Debate adjourned.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.