Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government debate -
Wednesday, 25 Oct 2017

Water Services Bill 2017: Committee Stage

Vice Chairman

This meeting has been convened to consider Committee Stage of the Water Services Bill 2017 which was referred to the select committee by order of the Dáil on 19 October. Deputy Mick Barry is substituting for Deputy Ruth Coppinger. I welcome the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, and his officials.

Before we begin consideration of the Bill, I propose that we deal with some housekeeping matters. To ensure the smooth running of the meeting, any Deputy acting in substitution for a member of the select committee should formally notify the clerk if he or she has not already done so. I propose that at 6.15 p.m., after approximately two hours of consideration of the Bill, the select committee take a break for approximately ten minutes. Is that agreed? Agreed. I propose that at 8 p.m. we consider the progress made and make a decision as to whether we should continue to proceed. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I ask members to ensure all mobile phones are switched off or switched to airplane mode for the duration of the meeting as they cause interference with the broadcasting equipment, even when left in silent mode.

Deputy Maria Bailey took the Chair.
SECTION 1

Amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Eoin Ó Broin has been ruled out of order.

I have been informed by the Bills Office and the office of the Ceann Comhairle that in cases where I challenge a decision to rule an amendment out of order I should notify the select committee in order that I can introduce the amendment in question on Report Stage in the event that the decision is overturned. It is my intention to challenge the decision in respect of amendment No. 1.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.

Amendment No. 2 in the names of Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett, Gino Kenny and Bríd Smith has also been ruled out of order.

I also intend to challenge the decision to rule the amendment out of order.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Jan O'Sullivan has also been ruled out of order.

I intend to take the same course of action as Deputies Eoin Ó Broin and Bríd Smith.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Amendment No. 4 in the names of Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett, Gino Kenny and Bríd Smith has also been ruled out of order.

We intend to take the same course of action in the case of this amendment.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

Amendment No. 5 in the name of Deputy Eoin Ó Broin has been ruled out of order.

I intend to challenge that decision.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

Amendment No. 6 in the name of Deputy Jan O'Sullivan has also been ruled out of order.

I will also challenge that decision. I note that the first point made in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill is that "the Water Services Bill 2017 provides the mechanism through which the majority of the recommendations of the report of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services can be introduced". The first recommendation made by the joint committee was on the holding of a constitutional referendum. On that basis, my amendment is in order.

On my ruling, the amendment is outside the scope of the Bill.

I understand the Chairman's ruling.

Amendment No. 6 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 in the names of Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett, Gino Kenny and Bríd Smith have also been ruled out of order.

We will challenge the decision to rule the amendments out of order.

Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

I oppose the section.

Question put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 2.

  • Bailey, Maria.
  • Casey, Pat.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.

Níl

  • Barry, Mick.
  • Ó Broin, Eoin.
Question declared carried.
Section 2 agreed to.
Question, "That section 3 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
Question, "That section 4 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
SECTION 5

Amendment No. 8 has been ruled out of order.

Can I bring it forward again?

Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Question, "That section 5 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
SECTION 6

Amendment No. 9 has been ruled out of order.

We will bring that amendment forward again.

Amendment No. 9 not moved.

Amendment No. 10 has been ruled out of order.

The same again.

Amendment No. 10 not moved.

Amendment No. 11 has been ruled out of order.

The same again.

Amendment No. 11 not moved.

Amendment No. 12 has been ruled of order.

The same again.

Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
Question put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 2.

  • Bailey, Maria.
  • Casey, Pat.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.

Níl

  • Barry, Mick.
  • Ó Broin, Eoin.
Question declared carried.
Question, "That section 7 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
SECTION 8

Amendments Nos. 13 to 17, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Amendment No. 15 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 14.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 8, line 15, to delete "12 month" and substitute "24 month".

Does the Chairman want me to discuss each of my three amendments in this section together or will we go through-----

Whatever the Deputy wishes.

In respect of amendment No. 13, the Bill as it stands proposes that the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, will carry out the review within 12 months of the budget. Part of it is because I do not think it will be able to get it done within a 12 month period but also because I think that water consumption will change given that people will then know that this review is happening and, therefore, if there is a longer period over which that review is undertaken, we might see reduction, leak fixes, etc., so we would get a more accurate picture at the end of the 24 months.

Amendment No. 15 is probably a more substantive one. For those of us who were members of the Joint Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services, if we dare to recollect that particular experience, one of the big disagreements involved the unit for calculating average usage. Is it the household, which was the Fine Gael position, or is it the individual, which was the Fianna Fáil position? From the way the Bill is worded, particularly this business of having a threshold of a household of four persons, there seems to be a fudge. The problem with that fudge is that it creates all sorts of anomalies so a household of five may be able to get some kind of additional allowance if this Bill goes through but a family of four, three or two will not. Therefore, it appears that a circumstance will arise where a family of three or four could be treated exactly the same as a family of one or two for the purposes of the threshold allowance, which is very significant. While I am not in favour of the Bill at all, it seems that having a per person usage right across the board so that the household calculation would be per person, whether that involves one, two, three or four households, is the only correct way to do it.

Amendment No. 16 is just a technical thing so it does not really need speaking to. It is typographical. In respect of amendment No. 17, if the CER is going to carry out the review, for us, one of the most interesting things that emerged from the Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services involved the figures we received demonstrating that average usage in terms of litres per person per day was one of the lowest in the OECD. Therefore, it is vital that this type of international comparison is included in the review of the CER. Therefore, I want that named specifically, which is amendment No. 17.

I will speak to amendment No. 15, particularly as the Bill relates to three and four-person households, especially four-person households.

What the Minister and the supporters of the Bill have been saying is that the so-called excessive use charge, the penalty, will only apply to what are being described as water wasters, 8% of consumers of water in the State. The way in which the Bill is constructed means that for a one, two, three and four-person household one gauges it on the basis of average household size, 2.75, which means that if it is a one or two-person household one would want to be using a hell of a lot of water. A three-person household is slightly discriminated against but a four-person household is really discriminated against. It means in reality that if a four-person household uses anything more than 1.16 times the average, it will then be hit with the excessive use charge. In other words, a four-person household which uses 17% more water than the average, which is only slightly so, will be hit with an excessive use charge when the excessive use charge comes in on 1 July 2019. In less than two years' time a four-person household which uses 17% more water than the average will get hit with an excessive use charge which in my view is water charges through the back door or by another name.

I do not have statistical data to hand on this but I would imagine there are probably more four-person households now than was the case in previous years given the number of young adults who are unable to purchase their own home or pay rent for private rented accommodation and who are staying at home with their parents. According to the Central Statistics Office in the census of 2016, a total of 500,000 young adults are staying at home with their parents. I do not expect the Minister or Fine Gael to change their position. I am posing the question most sharply to the Fianna Fáil representatives on the committee. Are they going to stand over a section of the Bill which says that a four-person household will be charged an excessive use charge, water charges by another name, in less than two years' time if they use less than 20% above the average water usage? There needs to be some debate on this topic.

In a previous job I was looking at statistics on the number of persons per household nationally. I think most fall within the range of less than three persons per household. A significant percentage of households consist of less than four persons. I understand that single adult households are deemed to be the people most vulnerable in terms of water use in particular. How is it proposed to distinguish between four people in a household with a single parent and three children or a household with four adults? The use per type of person is different.

My other concern relates to people who have a requirement for a significantly increased allowance of water due to medical reasons. How will each household be checked? I would expect it to be quite difficult to verify. One could be told there are six people living a house. The legislation refers to people "who ordinarily reside". How is that term defined?

I support amendment No. 13. A 24-month review is much better and provides more time to evaluate the situation. I wish to speak in particular to amendments Nos. 15 and 17. I support the amendments for all the reasons Deputy Barry outlined. I remember that when the Oireachtas committee discussed the issues with the experts, workers in the Oireachtas asked members of Fianna Fáil what it meant and they said they were okay, that they would not have to worry about paying water charges because they had it under control, as such. This now means that families of three and four or higher will be considered to have excessive use once they go over 17% of the average use. To my mind that is charging by the back door and it is a very dangerous precedent. Fines should be retained, as was originally discussed at the committee.

I wish to provide clarification on foot of what has been said. As far as I understand the average household occupancy previously referred to by the CER was 2.6. A two-person household is more than accommodated, as is a three-person household and a four-person household. When one goes beyond that there is provision for clarification to be sought in the event of the use being over the allowance. If there are five or six people in the household there is an allowance for them. The situation remains as it was when the Dáil instructed the Government to provide legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the special committee. In the future, 92% of people who were getting bills will not get them in the future. In regard to the 8%, I have every reason to believe that 4% of cases will be resolved and clarified and one will be left with 4% who still wish to use excessive amounts and that is when the penalties and fines will kick in thereafter.

I wish to speak to amendment No. 14, which calls for the deletion of the section. I support what has already been said by some of the other members. The problem is that we are defining wastage as normal household use where there are more people living in the house. That strikes me as the essence of what is being said. If one calculates per household rather than per person the more people there are in the house then they are considered water wasters. That is the complete opposite to what this Bill should intend to do. It was shown by the special committee that the wastage happens at the point of leakages not at the point of use. If we are going to go after the wastage then we should go after the leaks, which by and large are in the main part of the system rather than in individual households. Therefore, I argue for the deletion of the entire section because of its definition of wasters. Wasters are not another two or three people living in a house, they are people who do not fix the leaks, who have responsibility for the gross waste of water through leakages in towns and cities. That amounts to Irish Water and in the past it was the local authorities and overall it amounts to what the Oireachtas decides to do in relation to this very essential service.

I will speak to each individual amendment if I may and then I will answer some of the questions that were raised. In regard to amendment No. 13, the review to be carried out by the regulator will assess the rate of demand for water services in dwellings over a 12-month period. We can expect that usage over a 24-month period will be twice the annual usage so 12 months is being set down as a reasonable time to determine exactly what the average usage might be in the dwelling in question. Therefore, I cannot accept that amendment.

Amendment No. 14 seeks to remove certain subsections in relation to what the commission should consider when carrying out the review. The amendment proposed seeks to remove the provision to assess the rate of demand for services by individuals and in dwellings. As that is integral to the Bill itself I cannot accept the amendment.

In regard to amendment No. 15, the regulator has published data on water consumption and I will come back to that in a moment. I will not be accepting the amendment.

Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 relate to international comparisons. The review being carried out by the regulator will be based on actual consumption patterns.

I accept the Deputy's point about information on international consumption patterns and how it might be useful. Section 53(7)(b) sets out matters to which the Minister will have regard when making an order setting a threshold. One of these matters is the need to promote the conservation of water and the sustainable management of water resources. In that context, the Minister of the day could consider international consumption patterns. I can give a commitment that he or she would do so. It is also important that the water forum advise that international consumption patterns be referred to in that regard. I, therefore, ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.

To respond to some of the questions asked, ideally we would raise no money from the excessive use charge. This is about conservation. We want to tackle the 8% who are using almost one third of water supplies. We are anxious to use the period beforehand, the 12 months of review and the six months when a notice is issued to a household going over the excessive usage amount to have their consumption cut and the leaks fixed. That is the intention; it is not to find a new revenue stream for Irish Water.

The allowance is not 17% more. It is almost twice the average use per person when one considers the average consumption used for a four person household multiplied by 1.7. Given the data produced by the CER, which will become the CRU, it will accommodate eight people. There is more than enough of an allowance for a household. Whether it is one adult and three children or four adults, the 1.7 multiplier will accommodate significantly more water for each of the individuals in the household. According to the Central Statistics Office, CSO, the average number of people per household is 2.7; therefore, we are allowing for an average household of four, which is generous. Just over 70% of households in the State comprise four people or fewer. The allowances being provided are very generous. Again, we are trying to find the 8% who are using 30% of the water supplied and tackle this as a conservation measure.

Medical need is addressed later in the Bill. There can be an exemption for a household because of medical need. What "ordinarily resident" or "ordinary residing" means is dealt with later in the Bill. It will be addressed through regulations. If somebody is going off to college for five days per week, he or she will be considered to be ordinarily resident. That individual would not have excessive usage.

On how we calculate the figure, it is not just about looking at the household and not at the person. We are looking at both. We will allow for four people in terms of average household use. With the excessive use charge set at 1.7, based on the data we have seen to date, it will potentially allow for an additional four more. However, if there is another person living in the household, the household can apply for an additional usage allowance for that individual to be added to the average usage allowance which will cover four persons, although it is more than four when one considers the 1.7 multiplier. It is more than generous. This is about conservation, fixing leaks and ensuring we will have sound investment in water infrastructure into the future.

I am not sure that is what the Bill will do. It might be what the Minister intends it to do, but we can discuss some of the questions in that regard as we go through the sections.

First, I remind the committee what the Oireachtas committee recommended in its report before teasing out some of what the Minister said. Section 4.4 states: "The Committee recommends that the CER should determine average consumption levels setting the threshold level at 1.7 times the average household usage". That is the figure of 2.6 in the CER's recommendation at the time. It continues: "The legislation should also provide for appropriate allowances for extraordinary circumstances such as medical conditions and above the average household size [that is, households above 2.6 or 2.7] that falls beyond the threshold allowance and taking into consideration that the average usage per person is 133 litres per person per day". My reading of the legislation is that where it refers to average households, it still refers to a figure of 2.6 or 2.7. The Minister tells us that there is a change and that the average household, for the purposes of the legislation and the CER determining what the average household threshold will be, is four. Will he point to where that is explicit in the legislation as that is not my reading of the Bill? When it refers to average household usage, the implication throughout the Bill is that the figure is 2.6 or 2.7. The figure four comes into it for the purposes of determining the allowance above average household usage. That is where the concern arises.

Some of this goes to the heart of what the Minister said. He said this was not about a revenue stream, but I am not convinced. In the first instance, it is demonstrating a revenue stream in order that the Minister can go to the European Commission and say that although it might not be the full revenue stream the Government originally wanted, there is still a revenue stream. As everybody knows, the legislation allows for the prospect being available to this or future Governments to increase the revenue stream. Regardless of whether that is the intention of the Minister, it is built into the proposal, as it stands.

There is value in international usage figures being included in the CER's considerations. I accept and welcome the fact that the Minister will look at them at the point of determining the threshold. As the debate proceeded from the public deliberations and commentary on the Oireachtas Committee on Future Funding of Domestic Water Services, the notion that we had a problem with wastage took hold, a problem where small numbers of people are wasting large volumes of water. The CER tells us that there is a small number of households that are using a larger than average amount of water, but there is no evidence to suggest there is wastage. One of the strongest facts which is included in our original report and was reported to the committee is that average litres per person per day usage is significantly below the OECD and EU average. There is a need, therefore, for it to be included in the deliberations and considerations of the CER, as well as with regard to what the Minister suggested in terms of the considerations of the Minister at a later stage. However, it is very important at this point that we have clarity on the average household and the purpose in having four persons in the calculation of the additional allowance.

I appreciate what the Minister said and support the Bill. However, I am still not clear on the use of the word "ordinary". It is addressed in some respects in the next couple of pages, but what if somebody wishes to frustrate the intentions of the legislation? It will be necessary to check on people. For example, I might say there are seven people living in a house when there might only be two. I could, therefore, leave the taps on all day. I am not suggesting anybody would do so, but I have no doubt that it might happen. There will be a grave difficulty in that regard.

I am still concerned about a point I made earlier. I appreciate that a single parent will usually, although not always, have young children. Single parents were identified as a vulnerable group. It might be more to do with their income or capacity to pay water charges if they had to pay them. I do not see an exemption for persons in that category. Perhaps it is not intended because, regardless of whether people are in that group, the Minister could argue that they did not use excessive amounts of water. I am also concerned about children, teenagers and older people who use a lot of water. It will have an impact depending on the person involved. That is the reason the volumes are important. I accept that 70% of households comprise four or fewer people.

I am still concerned about the use of the word "ordinary" and defining it. The question of water poverty is probably more related to income than volumetric use, but I still believe children will probably use more water than the Minister expects. There is also the issue of larger families.

Briefly, we must have clarification of the average household issue. Our understanding of the position tallies with that of Deputy Eoin Ó Broin, which is that a five or six person household is calculated as a five or six person household but that households with one, two, three or four persons have all been calculated on the basis of the 2.6 or 2.7 figure, not what the Minister appeared to indicate, that they will be calculated on the basis of a figure of four. We seek clarification on that point.

I am very clear on it. The average number per household is four. If it is multiplied by 1.7, it brings the number up to 6.8. Therefore, a one-person household has a 6.8-person consumption level and all the way up. A family of eight can apply for an exemption based on the eighth person and get it. It is very simple. It is in somebody's interest to confuse us or try to generate some doubt. I have no doubt. This can go through as soon as one likes.

Where is that stated in the proposed section 53A?

It is stated in three or four places. It is in the proposed sections 53A(2)(b) and 53A(4)(b)(ii). The average usage figure is no longer 2.6. It is based on four persons. That is the instruction to the CER in the legislation. Is that correct? The multiple thereafter is 1.7, which results in the figure of 6.8. If the Deputy wants to confuse people or let them think the provision does not do what it says on the tin, I do not accept that.

The Deputy should show me where it says it on the tin.

I am not going to get into an argument, as much as those concerned want me to do so to give the impression that people will get their cheques back or that they will not receive bills again in the future. If that is what they like some people to believe, that is their business. That is the audience to which they are playing. As far as I am concerned, however, the recommendation from the Dáil, on foot of the recommendations made by the special committee, is that the Government produce legislation to give effect to the recommendations made. I am happy that they are contained in the legislation and I will vote accordingly.

I have an objection, but I am not going to create a row. This is a fundamental section of the Bill. Regarding section 8, the change Deputy Barry Cowen indicated does not specify explicitly to the CER what the average household number should be. That is not what it states. It might be the Deputy's interpretation of what is stated, but I am confused because it is not explicit. I am interested in hearing the Minister telling us whether his understanding is that this legislation is dictating to the CER that the average household is four. If that is the case, the provision in section 8 is even weaker than I thought. That is not what it dictates to the CER.

Section 8 refers a number of times to dwellings in which the number of residents "exceeds 4". Essentially it does not matter what the average household number is. Deputy Barry Cowen explained it quite well. The provision will mean that any household with more than four people will be able to apply for an additional allowance, per person, above four, but where there are four people, the average consumption will be calculated by Irish Water not based on the usage divided by the number of people in a house but on the usage divided by the number of customers, that is, the number of households. That brings us to a figure that effectively covers four people in terms of cubic metres on an annual basis. We are stating in the section that if there is a person in the house in addition to the four, one can apply for the additional person allowance in cubic metres. Notwithstanding this, there is an allowance of 1.7 on top of it for excess usage which, based on all of the available data, will cover eight persons in a household. Again, this speaks to Deputy Fergus O'Dowd's point about making sure a single parent with three young children will be more than provided for by the provision concerning an average household of four and the additional allowance of 1.7 above it.

On the point about international comparisons, international comparisons are welcome, but I do not believe this legislation is the place for them. I commit, however, to a reference thereto. The water forum should also make a recommendation in this regard such that when we are using the actual data for usage, we can also refer to international comparisons.

I am asking my question sincerely. I accept the figure of 1.7 which is very clear in the legislation. The proposed section 53A(2)(b) inserted in section 8 relates to section 9 which proposes to insert section 53B(2). The latter states "the Minister shall calculate the threshold amount by multiplying [this is crucial] the average rate contained in the report furnished to him or her under section 53A". In the report produced by the CER under the proposed new section 53A, what will be the average usage figure? I am asking a very straightforward question. Is the Minister saying that when the CER produces the report and examines household consumption levels, it will have to provide a report that will give an average based on a four-person household, or will that average be based on the total number of households assessed? The two are very different.

It is based on the total number of households assessed. That will give us the figure for a four-person household. That is what the data have shown us to date. If one divides consumption levels by the number of households, it will result in a figure – the average use, as we are determining it – that will cover four persons in a household based on the cubic meters of water used. We are saying 1.7 is the figure for additional capacity before an excess charge comes into play.

The proposed section 53A(4)(a) might cover the point the Deputy is making in terms of the reference in section 9 to the report that will come to me under section 8.

When the CER provided data for average household usage on the basis of its most up-to-date figures, it examined all households and total water consumption. It worked out an average figure, which gave a consumption level equivalent to a household of 2.6 or 2.7. I do not understand how it can do the same exercise, with broadly the same data but perhaps with a little change, and all of a sudden have 2.6 or 2.7 become four. Will the Minister explain it to me? Perhaps I just do not understand it, but I am happy to learn.

Is the figure of 2.6 or 2.7 not the CSO figure for the average size of a household in the country today?

The CER presented a report to the Oireachtas water committee. We had a big debate on what constituted average usage, per-person usage and household usage. It provided us with a table and came up with an average figure which was broadly equivalent to a household of 2.6 or 2.7. I am just trying to understand how an average total household consumption figure presented previously by the CER and which is roughly equivalent to household usage for a family of 2.6 can now become roughly equivalent to usage for a household of four.

Because it came back with an average household usage figure of 127 cu. m per household per year. In the same data it is indicated that it covers roughly in the region of four occupants. It is actually a little higher – 133 cu. m per household per year. The figure is 55 cu. m for one occupant, 93 cu. m for two occupants, 114 cu. m for three and 133 cu. m for four. That is what we are basing it on. The figure the CER provided, 127 cu. m., covers four occupants. This plus the figure of 1.7 actually covers eight occupants when one uses the figures provided for us by the CER.

Yet its report to us states the initial household average figure would be equivalent to a household of 2.6 on the basis of the data.

Let me be sure there is no confusion on the Deputy's part. The CER came back with an average household usage figure of 127 cu. m per year. Based on consumption patterns and the figures given, four occupants equates to 133 cu. m per year per household. That is what will be provided for in our talking about exceeding the figure of four. Above that figure, one can apply for an individual allowance based on what I believe is usage of 21 cu. m or 23 cu. m per person per year, but there is also the excess amount of 1.7 on top of it. The figure of 2.6 is irrelevant. The average consumption-----

The bottom line.

That is why we keep stating "exceeds 4" in section 8.

Is the Minister saying the proposed section 53A, inserted by section 8, is instructing the CER to base the average on a figure of four? That is the crucial point, but that is not how I read-----

Let me clarify. It will do two things. First, it will take the level of usage and divide it by the number of households, resulting in a certain figure. Second, it will define the average household as four and the two will match.

I doubt it, but the Minister's understanding is clear.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 8, to delete lines 22 to 30.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 8, line 25, to delete “exceeds 4” and substitute “exceeds 1”.

Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 6.

  • Barry, Mick.
  • Ó Broin, Eoin.

Níl

  • Bailey, Maria.
  • Casey, Pat.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 8, line 35, to delete “and”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 8, line 39, to delete “Water Services Act 2013).” and substitute the following:

“Water Services Act 2013), and

(h) international comparisons on average individual and household water usage.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 18 to 24, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Amendments Nos. 19 to 24, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 18.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 9, to delete lines 1 to 26.

Does the Minister wish to respond?

No. I do not accept the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 9, to delete lines 2 and 3 and substitute the following:

“(a) in respect of the first review, not later than twelve months after the coming into operation of this section,”.

The paragraph to which this relates confused me. The Water Charges (No. 2) Act 2013 concerns the water charges plan and the review period put in place once the commission introduces a plan for the charging of water services. If I read the section correctly - and I will stand corrected if I am wrong - this would allow a review of the report that has just been carried out within six months, which is a very short period of time. I could be wrong on that.

I believe the Deputy is talking about a later amendment.

I am on amendment No. 19. It concerns the first review and is on page 9 at lines two and three.

The Deputy is referring to amendment No. 20.

My apologies, the Minister is absolutely correct. The two are connected, however. This concerns whether a review can be conducted within six months of the existing review. This is the point at which I may be incorrect.

That seems to be a very short period of time, which is why I suggested a 12-month period. If I understand section 8(3)(a) incorrectly I am happy to withdraw it but I want clarity on that.

The intention is that a review would take place six months before a water charges plan would expire. There would be time to do the review before a new plan was put into place six months later.

If the water charges plan expires is the Minister saying there will be another water charges plan after that and what detail of that is relevant to this section of the Bill?

Six months prior to the ending of the current charges plan under Irish Water ceasing to be, the regulator would conduct a similar exercise to the one it will conduct one month from now on average usage, to determine the level and pattern of usage across the country.

On the basis of what the Minister has said I would be happy to withdraw amendment No. 19 but I want to speak to the subsequent ones.

They are all being discussed together.

Some are technical so it might be better if we go one by one because if I misunderstood the Bill I am happy to withdraw that amendment.

I have to deal with them one by one. The Deputy could refer to the amendment he is speaking to.

On amendment No. 20 I am not quite clear what the six-month period covers, under section 8(3)(b) of the Bill. Can he clarify that first?

The first review will be carried out within one month of the enactment of this Bill and that will allow us to determine the patterns ahead of the monitoring period for the following 12 months beginning in January. Subsequent reviews can take place from time to time as determined by the regulator and in any event not less than six months before a water charges plan would expire. The Deputy proposes to extend that to 12 months.

I tabled the amendment because I wanted the opportunity to tease it out and possibly extend it. I want to ensure I have the timelines right. There is the first review, under the proposed new section 53A and there can be subsequent reviews "6 months before the expiration of the period in respect of" the water services plan. When does the current water services plan expire?

It expires in 2018.

It expires at the start of 2018.

No. It expires at the end of 2018 and we are talking about six months into 2018.

The conversation we have had about average usage is instructive. Amendment No. 21 is a very simple amendment to provide that the outcome of that initial review is brought back to the Oireachtas for Members to discuss it. Deputy Cowen and the Minister have made a strong case that their understanding of the proposed new section 53A will do a certain thing. There will be a review. It would be right for us to have that review come back to this committee for scrutiny before the Minister, whoever that may be at that point, proceeds. It is a pretty reasonable request.

I cannot agree with that. We have to protect the independent function of the regulator in carrying out its duty but when the regulator, as a matter of course, holds regular public consultations in carrying out its role, it is open to any Member of the Houses, any Oireachtas committee or political party to engage in that consultation process. I cannot accept the amendment.

The primary purpose is not to interfere with the independence of the regulator. The regulator will come before the committee whenever we invite it. It is for us to scrutinise the report the regulator produces which will then inform, under the terms of the legislation, the actions the Minister will then take to set the threshold and allowance amounts. The purpose of the amendment is to give the Oireachtas a formal role in that consultation.

The report will be published. I will have no discretion in that regard. It is for the committee, if it wishes, to call on the regulator whenever it sees fit but is not for me to put into legislation that it would do so in respect of this consultation process.

Does the Deputy wish to speak to any other amendments?

We have already debated amendments Nos. 22 and 23 and 24-----

That is also in the names of Deputies Coppinger, Murphy and Barry.

I will speak to amendment No. 24 which states: "The Minister shall report to Dáil Éireann within six months of this Act coming into effect on the number of domestic swimming pools for the purpose of levying a charge on such pools." We submitted this amendment because the legislation includes the so-called excessive use charge. As far as we are concerned this is a Trojan horse, which builds into the legislation the possibility of the reintroduction of water charges through the back door because the excessive use charge is set at 1.7 times the average, that is, households using 70% more than the average. It might be true that only 8% of households will be caught with that now. The legislation, however, also allows for the Dáil in five years' time to reduce the figure of 1.7. Our amendments to that have been ruled out of order. In five years' time the Dáil if it wishes can reduce the figure of 1.7 and as it progressively reduces, it potentially draws more and more people under the heading of the excessive use charge, which effectively brings in water charges through the back door.

It has been argued that by opposing the excessive use charge we are opposed to the idea of massive wastage of water. We are not opposed to luxury use of water, such as water features in gardens or swimming pools, but if there is massive waste of water or in reality, luxury use of water, we will support that. I hope others will too. Let us have a report within six months for the purpose of levying a charge on domestic swimming pools.

I honestly do not understand this amendment and it does not speak about the luxury use of water but only about domestic swimming pools. The excessive usage charge is there to capture people using an amount of water above what would be the usage per household and we went through the numbers and what it would cover. If the Deputy thinks the excessive usage charge or allowance is so generous that it would cover people's swimming pools, how can the Deputy claim that it is water charges through the back door? Why is he talking about swimming pools? He does not talk about luxury features or people washing their cars or watering their gardens. I do not understand the amendment and I cannot accept it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 9, line 8, to delete "shall apply." and substitute the following:

"shall apply, and

(c) the Oireachtas shall be consulted prior to the conclusion of the review.".

Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 5.

  • Barry, Mick.
  • Ó Broin, Eoin.

Níl

  • Bailey, Maria.
  • Casey, Pat.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 9, line 18, to delete “exceeds 4” and substitute “exceeds 1”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 9, line 21, to delete “excess of 4” and substitute “excess of 1”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 9, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“(4A) The Minister shall report to Dáil Éireann within six months of this Act coming into effect on the number of domestic swimming pools for the purpose of levying a charge on such pools.”.

Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 5.

  • Barry, Mick.
  • Ó Broin, Eoin.

Níl

  • Bailey, Maria.
  • Casey, Pat.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
Question, "That section 8 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
SECTION 9

Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 have been ruled out of order.

I will raise them on Report Stage.

Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
Question put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 2.

  • Bailey, Maria.
  • Casey, Pat.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.

Níl

  • Barry, Mick.
  • Ó Broin, Eoin.
Question declared carried.

A pattern is emerging.

There is a slight pattern.

SECTION 10

Amendments Nos. 28, 30 to 33, inclusive, 36, 37, 39, 42 and 43 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 11, line 1, to delete "customer" and substitute "household".

I will speak to all of them as they are similar amendments. It may seem to some members that this is a symbolic or superficial change but it is quite important. Part of the opposition to domestic metered water charges was opposition to the commodification of water as a public good or service and the fear, based on what has been happening across the world, of eventual privatisation. This amendment seeks to make clear that the people who access water in the public system are not customers. We do not call pupils in schools customers of education services but we call them pupils. We do not call patients in hospitals customers but we call them patients. Just as water is a public good and public service, we should call the consumers, in this instance, households. In some senses this goes to the very heart of the difficulties we have had with water policy. This is really about saying people are not customers and we are not commodifying water. The Minister on Second Stage made it clear the water charges regime, as originally introduced by a former Minister and Deputy, Mr. Phil Hogan, is gone. The majority of the people and households - we do not know how many as of yet - will not pay charges and will not be in any kind of exchange relationship so cannot be regarded as customers. This is something I feel very strongly about and it is why in all the relevant sections of the text I have replaced "customer" with "household".

I support the amendments.

We have not yet had the chance to discuss the public ownership element around the debate but we will, very shortly, on Committee Stage of one of the Member's Bills. The "customer" is specifically defined in the water services legislation and in the 2013 Act it defines a customer as an occupant of a premises in respect of which water services are provided. "Household" is not defined in water services legislation so I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 5.

  • Barry, Mick.
  • Ó Broin, Eoin.

Níl

  • Bailey, Maria.
  • Casey, Pat.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 11, line 5, to delete "customer’s".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Question, "That section 10 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
Sitting suspended at 6.15 p.m. and resumed at 6.38 p.m.
SECTION 11

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 11, line 10, to delete “customer” and substitute “household”.

Question put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 11, line 15, to delete “customer” and substitute “household”.

Question put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 11, line 17, to delete “customer” and substitute “household”.

Question put and declared lost.
Question, "That section 11 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
SECTION 12

Amendment No. 34 in the name of Deputy Ó Broin is out of order.

Amendment No. 34 not moved.

Amendment No. 35 in the name of Deputy Ó Broin is out of order.

Can I come back to these amendments on Report Stage?

Amendment No. 35 not moved.

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 12, line 6, to delete “customer” and substitute “household”.

Question put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 12, line 8, to delete "customer" and substitute "household".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Question, "That section 12 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
SECTION 13

Amendment No. 38 has been ruled out of order.

Amendment No. 38 not moved.

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 12, line 36, to delete "customer" and substitute "household".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 have been ruled out of order.

Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 13, line 1, to delete "customer" and substitute "household".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 13, line 16, to delete "customer" and substitute "household".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 44 to 46, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 13, line 26, after "health" to insert "or social care".

If possible, will the Minister give us more information on how he sees the medical exemption scheme operating? Notwithstanding my opposition to the Bill, I welcome this element and it is important it is right. One concern is that there are several cases in other institutions where there is some type of medical exemption or medical threshold. For example, in South Dublin County Council, there is a medical priority on the housing list. People submit a certain type of medical documentation but it is not council officials who determine it. Instead, a senior HSE official makes an assessment of that information for the local authority.

Who will make these assessments in the case of exemptions from water charges? Will it be Irish Water staff or somebody with a medical or professional background? What is the Minister's understanding of the types of illness covered or medical information required? Again in the case of South Dublin County Council, it will not accept medical information from a GP or a counsellor for the housing priority list. It has to be at consultant level, a high threshold. Will the Minister give us as much information as he can on this?

On the specific amendments, the definition in this section needs to be a little bit broader than medical in the sense of some verifiable medical condition to include certain kinds of what might be termed hygiene or social conditions which might not be directly related to a medical illness but might be related to a behaviour which might affect questions of hygiene or volumes of water used. The first of the three amendments proposes to include not just a health care professional but a social care professional to allow for a broader understanding. Likewise, amendment No. 45 proposes to include medical or other evidence. This is not about generalised circumstances but where there might be a hygiene related requirement for additional use of water that, strictly speaking, is not a medical condition. Amendment No. 46 is consistent with that. They are all broadly in the same ballpark but are ensuring this particular section is right in that sense.

The intention in this section is not to penalise people if they are using what might be deemed excessive amounts under the legislation because they have a particular health need which requires them to use additional water. We will come to this again when deciding the regulations as to who will be in and who will be out. We will probably need to have some sort of catch-all provision to ensure we do not inadvertently exclude someone we do not mean to. We can look at other jurisdictions to do this and I will come back to the committee to have a consultation on this to ensure we are protecting those vulnerable people who require additional amounts of water. That is what we want to do with this section.

The term "health professional" captures the number of people who would have the best say as to who might be included. Sending it out to a social care worker might be too broad. It is my intention to ensure we get this right and to consult the committee on it. There is not a massive rush on this either because we have some time to clarify it and to look to best practice abroad. The essential intention of the section is to ensure there will be an exemption for those who have a condition that requires them to use an additional amount of water and that they will not come under an excessive charge for that. I hope that clarifies it for the Deputy.

It does. I will explain my concern a little bit more to ensure the Minister will consider it when he gets to the stage of drawing up the regulations. For example, somebody might have hygiene related issues which are indirectly related to mental health, a disability, a history of institutionalisation, or a lack of development of the life skills for independent living. This is a set of clearly defined circumstances. My concern is that the way this section is drafted means that someone in such circumstances can say he or she has have a medical condition that, for clear clinical reasons, requires an additional amount of water. From what the Minister just said, those are the kinds of people he might be attempting to bring into this broader category. On that basis, I am willing not to press the amendments.

The way medical priority works in South Dublin County Council is that a strict link with one's accommodation needs has to be established by a senior medical practitioner. It is a pretty high bar. It is not necessarily wrong in the instance of a housing priority allocation. However, if one replicated that stringent regime and applied it to this exemption, it could exclude categories of people who would legitimately require above-average usage. It is in those areas which are not demonstrably medical but are behavioural or indirectly related to mental health or disability. One has to find some way of capturing those. If the Minister gives us a commitment to discuss this issue prior to drawing up regulations, I would be happy to withdraw the amendments. It is a genuine proposition.

In the case of behavioural conditions, and I know of one particular example to which the Deputy referred, a health professional should be able to capture that in some way in getting that exemption from Irish Water. We can work that out in the regulations. I intend to capture the other conditions referred to by the Deputy under the regulations.

How does the Minister intend to do that? Will they all be listed?

No. In the UK and other jurisdictions, they will list some and might have a catch-all provision as well. If we all agree on the intention that somebody who must use an additional amount of water because of a health need will be exempted, then it can be done with regulations. This section gives us scope to do that in the regulations.

Obviously, as Deputies and as a committee, we have no formal involvement in the regulation process. However, it would be useful, even just on an informal basis, that prior to the introduction of the regulations, the Minister discusses them with the committee.

At a draft stage?

That would be perfect.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 not moved.
Section 13 agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 are ruled out of order.

Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.
Section 15 agreed to.
Sections 16 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 19

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 17, line 5, to delete "charges" and substitute "services strategic".

This is a technical amendment to correct a typographical error.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 17, lines 31 and 32, to delete all words from and including "section 22."." in line 31 down to and including line 32 and substitute the following:

"section 22.

(7) Recognising that Irish Water is a fully State funded entity, Irish Water shall be required to report, as required, to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to be amenable to all reporting guidelines and inspection and audit powers of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General as provided for in the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993.".".

One of the issues at the centre of the controversy around water services and Irish Water is the lack of transparency and accountability, particularly in terms of financing issues. To address that, this amendment proposes to require Irish Water to bring forward a report to the Comptroller and Auditor General in accordance with the legislation governing the functions of that office.

I support this proposal, which is something I have raised with the Minister in the past. I had hoped he would bring forward his own proposal in this regard but, in the absence of such an amendment, what is proposed here is suitable. It allows almost for the full application of the confidence and supply arrangement in respect of Irish Water. The latter is without question a public utility and what is proposed here creates a far less grey area than would be the case prior to a referendum on the issue. I hope the Minister will respond positively to this proposal.

I do not disagree with the sentiment behind the amendment. I sat on the Committee of Public Accounts and have worked with the Comptroller and Auditor General on a range of issues. Given the fact that Irish Water will be funded by my Department, there is a role potentially for the Comptroller and Auditor General in respect of the utility's operations. However, the advice I have is that this legislation is not the best place for such a provision and that the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 would be the more appropriate place to include it. I will have to take further advice on that and consult with the Comptroller and Auditor General's office to ensure it has the resources to take on this work. It is an excellent office that does good work on behalf of the State but, at this point in time, I cannot accept the amendment.

Does Deputy Ó Broin wish to press the amendment?

If I do so and the proposal falls, will I be able to reintroduce it on Report Stage?

Doing so would not preclude the Minister, if he so wished and having consulted the Comptroller and Auditor General, from introducing an alternative wording on Report Stage?

The advice I have is that it is the 1993 Act that would require to be amended, not this Bill. I do not expect that advice to change.

If the Deputy wishes to withdraw the amendment, he will be able to raise it again on Report Stage.

To be clear, does the same apply if I press the amendment?

Yes. Either way, the Deputy will be able to raise it again on Report Stage.

Will the Minister undertake to correspond with the committee as soon as is practically possible in order to allow us to consider the matter further in advance of Report Stage? If the Comptroller and Auditor General is adamant in his advice that the 1993 legislation will require amendment, I take it the Government will proceed with that approach in order to cater for what we are proposing here. Is that the case?

I will correspond with the committee as the Deputy has suggested.

Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 6.

  • Barry, Mick.
  • Ó Broin, Eoin.

Níl

  • Bailey, Maria.
  • Casey, Pat.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 51 is in the names of Deputies Coppinger, Paul Murphy, Barry and Ó Broin. Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 51:

In page 17, lines 31 and 32, to delete all words from and including "section 22."." in line 31 down to and including line 32 and substitute the following:

"section 22.

(7) Within six months of this Act coming into effect the Minister shall--

(a) commission a report on the upgrading of the water infrastructure and the volume of unaccounted water, and

(b) commission a report on the changes to building regulations required to ensure there are water conservation measures in all newly built properties.".".

I cannot accept the amendments.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 20

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 18, line 2, to delete "dwelling.", and" and substitute the following:

"dwelling.

(1B) Within six months of this Act coming into effect the Minister shall report to Dáil Éireann on the establishment of a grant to domestic households for the purposes of water conservation.",

and".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 20 agreed to.
Sections 21 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 27

Amendment No. 53 is in the names of Deputies Coppinger, Paul Murphy, Barry and Ó Broin. Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 53:

In page 22, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

"(4) When prescribing the regulations under subsection (3) the Minister shall ensure one third of the membership of the Forum consists of trade union representatives and one third consists of local community representatives.".

I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 27 agreed to.
Sections 28 to 43, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 44
Question proposed: "That section 44 stand part of the Bill."

I have a question about page 27, lines 15 to 20. I have concerns about Ervia being mentioned in this legislation.

To which part is the Deputy referring?

Subsection (3), which sets out the powers of the advisory body. It reads: "The Advisory Body shall, in so far as is consistent with the proper performance of its functions, endeavour to secure administrative cooperation between it and the Commission, the Agency, Ervia". Ervia is a separate company and should have nothing to do with Irish Water. It is a parallel company, but I would be concerned about the implications of this subsection. I would like to understand why it has been included.

Irish Water is a subsidiary of Ervia and there are certain group functions in the board. This is a part of the confidence and supply agreement.

I have made a point about this matter consistently. Irish Water is a stand-alone company. Ervia may have some role or supply services, but those must be contracted into Irish Water. I am not opposing any section. I just want to reiterate my concern that Ervia should have nothing whatsoever to do with any decision on Irish Water. That was the recommendation of the initial consultancy report on Irish Water. We needed the support of Bord Gáis through its skills and knowledge to set up Irish Water, but it was always the intention that it would be separate. I do not know what the legal implications are. I would be happy to raise this matter on the next Stage if the Minister would like.

The intention of the section is that, if the advisory body requests information from Ervia, Ervia must supply it so that the advisory body can have whatever information it requires to perform its functions and role.

The point is that Ervia has no role.

Irish Water is a subsidiary of Ervia.

It is separate in every respect.

It is separate in the context of the board of Irish Water being a separate board. Is it not?

There are certain group functions and certain members of Irish Water's board are members of Ervia's board.

The intention of this provision is to ensure that the advisory body can obtain any information that it needs to do its work.

Fair enough. I will not oppose the section, but I am concerned about Ervia having anything to do with Irish Water.

The Deputy's concern is noted.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 45

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 29, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

"(d) a representative nominated by the trade union movement.".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 45 agreed to.
Sections 46 to 53, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 54
Question proposed: "That section 54 stand part of the Bill."

Does Deputy Ó Broin wish to raise something?

Yes.

I do not understand what is proposed in sections 54, 55, 56 and 57 in terms of the transfer of local property taxes to the local government fund and in regard to the other financial transfers. Perhaps the Minister would explain each of them.

Essentially, this is about ensuring a more transparent line of sight over the funding into Irish Water from my Department. Sections 54 to 59 give effect to a change in funding sources to and from the local government fund and the Central Fund arising from the report of the working group on the future funding model for Irish Water. All of these changes are on an Exchequer neutral basis and are designed, as I said, to improve transparency to the funding of Irish Water and to ensure that, as recommended, Irish Water will be funded from general taxation. In summary, section 54 provides that from 2018 the local property tax, which is currently remitted to the Central Fund, will be remitted directly to the local government fund. There is no change to the system of administering and collecting LPT by the Revenue Commissioners.

Sections 55 to 59 are amendments to the Local Government Act 1998, which established the local government fund, LGF, to provide that motor tax, instead of being transferred to the local government fund, as is currently the case, will be paid to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport and then transferred to the Exchequer. There will be no change to the administrative structures in terms of motor tax collection either online or at motor tax offices and payments in respect of roads and other public transport infrastructure to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, which up to now could be made from the local government fund, funded by motor tax, will no longer be possible. These payments will instead be routed through the Vote of that Department. Similarly, payments to Irish Water from the local government fund will no longer be possible. These payments will instead be routed through the Vote for my Department. This is essentially a streamlining of the process.

It is about where the money goes.

Yes. It is all Exchequer neutral. The process up to now was quite confusing. Under the new provisions, there will a direct line of funding into Irish Water from my Department, which makes clear how the Exchequer is directly funding Irish Water.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 55 to 62, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.

As the Bill has completed Committee Stage, it is recommended that members submit Report Stage amendments to the Bill's Office without delay as Report Stage may be tabled at short notice.

When is Report Stage likely to be taken?

Following the mid-term recess.

Top
Share