I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Fergus O'Dowd, back to the House. We recommence proceedings on amendment No. 30.
Water Services (No. 2) Bill 2013: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 12, line 6, to delete “In this section” and substitute “In this Part”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are out of order as they are in conflict with the principle of the Bill, as read a second time, and involve a potential charge on the Exchequer. Amendment Nos. 33 and 34 are out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Exchequer.
Amendments Nos. 31 to 34, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 12, after line 36, to insert the following:
“(10) 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.”.
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 30.
Tá
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Daly, Mark.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- Power, Averil.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cullinane, David.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Whelan, John.
- Zappone, Katherine.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Darragh O'Brien and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Ivana Bacik and Paul Coghlan.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 36 to 39, inclusive, in the name of Senator Cullinane, are out of order.
Amendments Nos. 36 to 39, inclusive, not moved.
As amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 43 are related, they may be discussed together by agreement.
Government amendment No. 40:
In page 13, to delete lines 7 and 8 and substitute the following:
"(3) A water charges plan shall specify—
(a) the manner and method by which charges under section 17 shall be calculated, and
(b) the costs likely to be incurred by Irish Water in the performance of its functions under this Act during the period to which the water charges plan relates.".
These amendments provide that the Commission for Energy Regulation shall consider all of Irish Water's costs - its capital and operational expenses - when it is considering the water charges plan submitted by Irish Water. As I explained earlier, the costs submitted by Irish Water will be subject to detailed examination by the economic and technical specialists within the Commission for Energy Regulation. This analysis by the commission will ensure Irish Water's costs are justified and the interests of the consumer are protected.
I oppose this amendment because it is insufficiently prescriptive. We have had this conversation on a few occasions. This amendment provides that a "water charges plan shall specify .... the manner and method by which charges under section 17 shall be calculated". Who will calculate the charge? It will not be the Oireachtas. As far as I can see, it will be the commission. The amendment also provides that each plan shall specify "the costs likely to be incurred by Irish Water in the performance of its functions under this Act". I just do not think it is good that we will pass this Bill without knowing how the charge will be calculated.
The proper thing to do would be for the Oireachtas to set out how the charge will be calculated and the ability to pay element we think should be included. We are opposed to the charge. Notwithstanding that and given that the Government is going to impose it, we should try to mitigate the worst excesses of water charges, particularly for those on low incomes. All this amendment does is allow the commission and the economic and technical specialists, as the Minister of State said, to make these determinations. The Minister of State said in a number of replies relating to this issue that we can bring Irish Water and even the commission to the Oireachtas committee to discuss and tease out all these issues. We will do that so the Minister of State can take that for granted. All of us from both the Government and Opposition sides will have a lot to say when that happens. What we are saying is that we can be much more prescriptive in advance of that and set down very clear guidelines and criteria as to what the commission should do before it introduces charges, the way charges are calculated and the protection that should be built in because we are elected to ensure people are protected, particularly those on low incomes. They are the people for whom we are most fearful in respect of water charges. We fear they will be the ones who will be disproportionately affected. I cannot support any of the amendments - amendments Nos. 40, 41 or 43 - and I will be pushing all three to a vote.
Does the Minister wish to respond?
We and the Opposition have reached agreement in terms of what the Senator said about the intention of the Oireachtas to interrogate all these issues. I mean that in the broadest sense and not in a political sense. I met the regulator earlier today in connection with this issue. The regulator reassured me that, as was said in public and quoted in the Oireachtas document, it wants to be proactive in communications. The process will be that Irish Water will set out its plan with all the costs. That will be a public document. The regulator will release that for consultation. People make their comments on it. Obviously, the views of Oireachtas Members and members of the public are very welcome and will be treated equally. We agree it is very important that the Oireachtas invites in the persons concerned, particularly Irish Water, to invigilate and do due diligence on all the issues. Notwithstanding what Senator Cullinane is saying, I honestly believe this legislation is setting up the framework under which every issue on which the regulator makes a decision is transparent and accountable. I am satisfied these amendments, notwithstanding the fact Senator Cullinane may oppose them, are good and that the outcome will be productive and constructive, particularly for consumers.
In respect of the ability to pay, the Government said repeatedly that every home will have the free allowance. Affordability and water poverty, which the Senator and his colleagues raised, are very important issues on which the Government will be deciding in the not too distant future. There will be transparency about how that will be dealt with, which is very important. There are other issues that may relate to the role of the regulator which we can deal with in another Bill to come before the House before the charges come in. Due to the fact that domestic buildings will not be paying a bill until January 2015 at the earliest, there is enough time to deal with all of these issues in order that there is total clarity and consultation. I believe that is the proper, democratic and accountable way to do it.
The Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which was the previous legislation just passed by the Seanad, contained an amendment proposed by the Seanad which was accepted by the Dáil. I thank the Minister of State with responsibility for research and innovation, Deputy Sherlock, for that. It is proof of the good working relationship between the Seanad and the Dáil.
I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. Amendment No. 40 states that a water charges plan shall specify the manner and method by which charges under section 17 shall be calculated and the costs likely to be incurred by Irish Water in the performance of its functions under this Act during the period to which the water charges plan relates. The previous item was a Christmas goodwill present from the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock. I was wondering whether there was a possibility of one this afternoon. What is the free amount and what is the price? The Minister of State is asking us to act in the dark on that.
In respect of the amendment's reference to the costs likely to be incurred by Irish Water, the regulator is acting on our behalf and should not accept the costs. Otherwise, he is not providing the counterweight we all need. There are some which we have had only this week. Health insurance costs went up by 86% in four years. Bus fares are regulated by the National Transport Authority and went up 10% last Monday week. They have lost about 55 million passengers in five years. Our electricity prices are 42% above the EU average. Last week, the Commission for Energy Regulation won a case in the High Court on stranded assets which, according to one interpretation, means we cannot import low-cost gas into Shannon from the US. Regulators tend to be captured, as we said on previous Stages. They will submit costs. What we are looking for somebody who will work harder than these regulators do on behalf of the consumer. There is reference to the need for that in the Government's economic strategy announced this week. We have failings in this area. Water is such a vital commodity for everybody. I agree with Senator Cullinane that we must have a stronger role for the Oireachtas. There is much public dissatisfaction with some of these regulators. Water is a vital commodity and nothing can take its place, as the Minister said so eloquently. This is why I am worried about amendment No. 40.
To the average citizen, a water charges plan means what he or she will have to pay. In a previous amendment that was ruled out of order, we put down our estimate of what the free allowance should be. If the consumption is 145 litres, we wanted to give them 100 litres free. That is where we got that number. What water charges mean to the average citizen depends on us having much more information on what the water charges will be. That is why Senator Cullinane has raised important points.
I thank Senator Barrett and the House for what happened earlier and acknowledge it. It is very welcome and shows the objectivity we have in debates, which I very much welcome. The Oireachtas has invigilating powers, particularly in respect of the water services plan, and will play a very important role in that. There will be legislation later which will take up some issues relating to the regulatory powers. This will add to the arguments people are making in respect of the transparency of decision-making and how it is arrived at. I refer again to the document on the regulator's website which sets out what it will put into the mix in terms of costs such as the capital and operational expenditure, the assets that are transferred, the value of the assets and outstanding loans and liabilities. It will be a very complex and technical but transparent process which I am happy will help build the confidence we must have in the regulator. I understand how people feel about regulators. I know the damage that was caused to our economy, particularly relating to the banks.
I have every confidence that this process will work. As the year progresses I think there will be reassurance for everyone, including Senators, and most of all, for the consumer who gets the bill and who must be confident that the process is fair. Issues of water poverty and health issues will need to be dealt with in a fair and transparent manner.
I remind speakers that we are dealing with Report Stage.
I will be brief. I agree with the Minister of State that the Bill provides for real openness and transparency. I wish all the utility companies would have as open and transparent a process in place. As Senator Barrett said, water is a vital commodity but it is a commodity that will need significant investment in the future to ensure continuity of supply.
Senator Cullinane and I have had some discussions privately about the fact that many people are paying for their water for years through group water schemes all over the country yet those of us who live in large towns with public sewerage and water systems are not paying a penny. There is an imbalance. We need a structure that is workable. I have every confidence that Uisce Éireann will be able to deliver. This Bill is worthy of support.
There is an opportunity for significant water harvesting and I hope at some future time that the Government will consider incentivising people to conserve water. In my view it makes no economic sense to give treated water to cattle or to use it for washing cars or watering lawns. This is an issue for another debate and I will not delay the House today.
I thank the Senator for that. We will return to discussing amendment No. 40. Is the amendment agreed?
It is not agreed.
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 13.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Whelan, John.
Níl
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Mark.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- Power, Averil.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Ivana Bacik and Paul Coghlan; Níl, Senators David Cullinane and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh.
Amendment declared carried.
Government amendment No. 41:
In page 13, line 17, to delete "amount" and substitute "quantity".
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 13, line 27, after "customer," to insert the following:
"and will provide exemptions for customers who can demonstrate an inability to pay based on criteria set down by the Minister".
This amendment is a bit watery, pardon the pun. We only tabled it in this manner because it was the only way we could table a Report Stage amendment that sought to include some sort of ability to pay clause in the charge. We have at least managed to move an amendment through which to discuss the issue.
In response to previous contributions, the Minister of State mentioned that the Government would examine issues of a free allowance, affordability and water poverty. However, our problem is that we do not want to take a leap of faith and vote for a Bill that will allow for water charges in the hope that the Government will ensure protections for low-income families. Similar amendments were tabled by Fianna Fáil and ruled out of order. It would have been better had an ability to pay element been introduced into the section on a water charges plan. The clause would have been prescriptive.
Perhaps the Minister of State might tease out how the Government's affordability mechanisms will work and what provisions will be put in place to support low-income families in particular. He mentioned sick people. Obviously, they must be looked after. However, if the Government is not willing to accept amendments on an ability to pay clause or even an exemption for customers who can demonstrate an inability to pay, which are essentially the same suggestions but worded differently, the Minister of State should inform the House of what the Government means when it claims that it will address the issue of affordability. This is an important question.
How will the Government deal with the issue of water poverty? The Minister of State might have noticed that a report on food poverty was published by the Mandate and UNITE trade unions. We do not want to see water poverty being reported on in five, ten or 20 years' time and becoming an issue alongside fuel poverty, food poverty and poverty generally. If the Government is genuine - I am not saying that it is not - about affordability, protecting low-income families and ensuring that we do not create water poverty, the Minister of State should tell us how people will be protected. I look forward to his response.
The Minister of State has addressed this matter a number of times, but further reassurance would be good. We have always worked on the basis that, when Irish Water comes into being and people are charged, there will be an allowance. It must be based on an ability to pay, factoring in the size of one's family. There cannot be a set amount regardless of the family's size. The Minister of State mentioned that we will have another opportunity to discuss these issues when we debate the regulations establishing Irish Water in 2014, but I support the overall point about being cognisant of families' sizes and, thus, their ability to pay.
We would all like to see people with particularly difficult economic situations or long-term illnesses being granted some allowance. However, I would be concerned about the logistics. How would such an approach be arranged? Dealing with every householder individually would be complex.
In his reply, perhaps the Minister of State would indicate how this can physically be handled.
I want to ensure that people who cannot afford to pay will be recognised as such. It is also important that a realistic allowance is given to everybody. People must be made aware that they cannot waste water. Free water is not an issue in that respect but a fair allowance should be given to everybody so that they will have enough water to use. A scientific judgment must be made of what a fair allowance is.
I referred earlier to medical conditions because there are hardship issues in various households. The question of a fair allowance will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis, but it would be good to know how it will be done.
We have to take into consideration a person's ability to pay. In that regard, we should consider introducing in the Bill whatever mechanism is needed to assess that ability.
How will the free allowance for households be decided upon? Will someone living alone in a four-bedroom house have the same allowance as a family with four children in a similar dwelling, even though there is no comparison in water usage? How therefore will that allowance be determined and enforced?
A figure of €750 was mentioned on earlier stages of the legislation.
I did not mention that figure, it was Senator Barrett.
The eminent professor of economics came up with that figure based on the amount of money it takes to process water and the number of households in the country. The figure seems to be a realistic one. When one combines that with the famous standing charge we dealt with earlier, it will be quite a considerable bill for a normal household. For a household with a substantial number of people living in it, however - perhaps three generations - what free water allocation will be made for them? How will it be determined?
An interdepartmental group was established to examine issues, including affordability and the free allowance. I welcome the viewpoints of all Members on both sides of the House on the question of affordability. The body is consulting with a number of groups on the free allowance and other issues. The interdepartmental group comprises representatives of the ESRI, the National Federation of Group Water Schemes, Uisce Éireann, the Department of Social Protection regarding free schemes, the housing section of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, the HSE, the Department of Health, the CER regulator, and the community and voluntary pillar. I understand that the Society of St. Vincent de Paul has been discussing this issue specifically and Public Policy.ie is also involved. The interdepartmental group has also received a written submission from the Money Advice and Budgeting Service and plans to meet its representatives early in the new year.
The knowledge and wisdom that all those people will bring to dealing with those matters, together with the views of Senators, will be valuable. A significant amount of work is being done to get answers to such questions. The group is being chaired by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. When the group has concluded its work early in the new year, proposals will be brought to Government. I do not have a date for the conclusion of the group's work but it will be as early as possible.
I can assure the House that supports will be provided to those in need. In addition, the Department of Social Protection is represented on the interdepartmental group. Charges for households will not commence until the fourth quarter of 2014 with the first bill in 2015. Details of the levels of charges and the affordability supports will be announced well in advance of the introduction of charges. There will be an opportunity for the Oireachtas to discuss those issues in the meantime.
To be fair to the Minister of State, he has on every occasion dismissed the €750 figure. The problem is, however, that we do not know what the figure will be. That is the argument on which we have gone round in circles for the last 17 hours. Unfortunately, I do not think any of us can give a figure.
What is the figure in the North?
The Senator will be happy to know that there are no water charges in the North.
The question was asked as to how we can practically introduce an inability to pay clause. How would it work? If somebody rents a house from a local authority, we have systems in place whereby we can calculate the rent based on income. It is not difficult to do but it depends on whether or not the political will is there to make it happen. If the political will is there to ensure that low income families are protected, then they will be. It is welcome that we have broad political support in this House at least to ensure that there is an inability to pay element in the Bill, whatever form that might take. We must protect low income families, so such a clause is to be welcomed.
I wish to clarify something that is not clear in the legislation. The Minister of State has said repeatedly that in any event all of this will come back to the Oireachtas. Part 3 dealing with water charges states that the water services plan will be framed by Irish Water itself. The relevant text states that the amount of a charge under subsection (1) shall be calculated by Irish Water in accordance with the approved water charges plan or an approved agreement. Under the water charges plan, it refers to how it will be done. Is the Minister of State telling the House that once the water charges plan is put in place it must go into legislation to come before the Oireachtas?
Can I answer that?
The Minister of State can reply afterwards.
That is the impression that was given. I would hate the House to be misled by accident. If it is the case that the water charges plan, which will determine the charge, will not form part of legislation to come before us, then we will not have an opportunity to vote on the criteria for charges in the water charges plan itself. It is a simple question. I have gone though the relevant section but I cannot see any reference to supporting legislation to implement the water charges plan. It appears that the commission will draft the water charges plan and then submit it to Irish Water. Perhaps I am missing something, but I do not see that following this Bill there will be supporting legislation to allow for the water charges plan. Is it the case or not that once the water charges plan is submitted to Irish Water there will then be supporting legislation?
This is the legislation which provides for the plan to be done.
So there will not be further legislation.
With respect, that is not what was said earlier.
As the Senator said, I may have inadvertently miscommunicated it, for want of a better way of putting it in English. There will be a debate here on all of these issues. The first debate is when Irish Water or Uisce Éireann makes its plan. First, it goes to the regulator and will become a public document, so it will be a matter for discussion and debate. The regulator then consults with everybody who will have the opportunity to give their views on various points. I have absolutely no doubt that there will be a debate in both Houses of the Oireachtas on that plan.
Legislation is different to a debate.
Legislation has the power and the power is given here but there will be accountability.
It is not. We are giving the power to the commission.
I am sorry but the Senator has already spoken.
I do not know if it is a fair analogy but one must look at the way the regulator makes decisions on electricity. The regulator consults but has the power to make the final decision. The Government does not set the charge for electricity, telecoms or all sorts of other sectors. It appoints a regulator to take on board all the views. Members of the Oireachtas will have a discussion on all these issues before the final decision is made. The Bill is giving the power to the regulator to make that decision but the regulator will have to consult properly. The Government cannot fix annual gas or electricity rates.
It has to be a decision made in light of all existing costs and the commercial nature of the company. The purpose of the charges is to ensure the company is resourced.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 24.
Tá
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Mark.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- Power, Averil.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- Whelan, John.
Tellers: Tá, Senators David Cullinane and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh; Níl, Senators Ivana Bacik and Paul Coghlan.
Amendment declared lost.
Government amendment No. 43:
In page 13, to delete lines 36 to 39 and substitute the following:
“(8) The Commission may, having regard to the most recent investment plan provided to the Commission under subsection (8) of section 29 and the costs likely to be incurred by Irish Water in the performance of its functions during the period to which a water charges plan submitted to the Commission under this section relates—
(a) approve that water charges plan with or without modification, or
(b) refuse to approve that water charges plan.”.
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 12.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Whelan, John.
- Zappone, Katherine.
Níl
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Mark.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Power, Averil.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Ivana Bacik and Paul Coghlan; Níl, Senators David Cullinane and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh.
Amendment declared carried.
Government amendment No. 44:
In page 14, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
“ “superannuation benefit” means a pension, gratuity or other allowance payable on resignation, retirement or death;”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 14, to delete lines 26 to 34.
This is one of those peculiar amendments Sinn Féin has drafted to enable Members to restate their opposition to the establishment of Irish Water. In essence, the amendment seeks to eliminate completely from the Bill the memorandum and articles of association of Irish Water. The more one hears from the Minister of State and the Government, the more one hears the responses to all Members' questions in this House and the more one sees of the Bill, the more and not less concerned one becomes. I genuinely believe a quango will be established that will take valuable assets from local authorities but that will not take all the liabilities and which eventually will be fattened up and prepared for privatisation. The Minister of State has indicated this is not the intention and that privatisation is not contemplated in the Bill. He is correct, of course, because one does not write into a Bill the intention to privatise something at some point in the future. However, the Bill puts it into the hands of three Ministers, namely, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Minister for Finance. At some point in the future, a Government may wish to sell off Irish Water and Members have taken note of what is happening to Bord Gáis Energy and so on. It is a very real possibility that at some time in the future, Irish Water will be sold off. In a number of his previous responses while discussing water charges, the Minister of State referred to the obligation on Irish Water to be a profitable company. This is the kind of language one hears when semi-State bodies are being fattened up for privatisation, that is, one first must make them profitable. The same was true in respect of bin charges and waste collection. Such functions were under the auspices of local government but when charges were introduced, the service was no longer subsidised but became something for which people were obliged to pay. Once the charge was introduced and became a reality, it was not very long before almost every local authority in the State privatised the service and dispensed with it from a local authority perspective. Consequently, there is a real chance this will happen with Irish Water at some time in the future.
To revert to the point about charges, which will be under the remit of Irish Water, the Bill reads:
Irish Water may, from time to time, and shall when so directed by the Commission, prepare and submit to the Commission a plan ... [this being a] “water charges plan” ... for the charging of customers for the provision of water services.
As the Minister of State clarified in his previous contribution, this is the only opportunity Members will have to support or not support a water charges plan or to support or not support water charges. There will be no supporting legislation and no new legislation. In essence, if Members pass this Bill, thereby giving the power and the responsibility for the framing of water charges plans and, in consequence, water charges, to the commission and to Irish Water, it will not return to this House. Members may well have debates and may well have discussions - I am sure they will, once it becomes a reality - but they will not be able to vote on the details or the specifics thereof. As Sinn Féin Members have stated throughout the debates on this Bill, this is asking Members to take a major leap of faith and, in effect, to buy a pig in a poke. Members will not know how much free water will be given to individuals, how people will be protected or whether there will be an inability-to-pay clause. In fairness to Senator Landy, in his contribution he supported the idea that low income families obviously should be protected. Nevertheless, he also appeared to be of the understanding that this measure would be reverting to Members by way of legislation. This will not be the case because this is Members' only chance either to support or not support water charges or the giving of power to Irish Water.
This is the reason I have tabled this amendment. Sinn Féin simply does not buy into the concept of Irish Water. It is not in favour of putting in place a new quango or of taking assets, power and responsibility from local government to set up a new quango, which will have a board, which will be filled by all sorts of staff at the top and which will control the provision of vital water services. Eventually, I believe it will be privatised like many other State companies and semi-State companies have been. There are genuine concerns as to how Irish Water will take shape in practice, some of which were rehearsed yesterday and which have been expressed by the city manager in Dublin. People have real concerns, both at official level and at elected representative level in local government, on how Irish Water will work in practice. In the context of a number of amendments tabled yesterday, Sinn Féin Members asked the Minister of State to suspend the Bill and to hold off on its passage until the Government gets its act together because I do not believe this is legislation Members can support. If Members will pardon the pun, the Minister of State should pull the plug on the Bill until such time as the concerns shared by many are addressed fundamentally. Thereafter, the Minister of State should return with a Bill Members can support.
Were the Minister of State to return with a fresh, new Bill that provides Members with the information they require on how all this will work out and in which the mandate is given to the elected representatives in the Dáil and the Seanad, not to a third party as this Bill does, as well as asking Members to take a leap of faith, Members might be in a position to support the Bill. However, Sinn Féin will not support the Bill when Members essentially are being asked to shoot in the dark. Members want to be able to support the Bill when they know precisely how this will affect the people outside this Chamber whom they represent. Even some Government representatives are of this view, even if they do not express it publicly in this Chamber. I have seen reports of how councillors from Fine Gael and the Labour Party at local authority meetings throughout the State are very exercised and concerned about the establishment of Irish Water. Moreover, they are making many of the points I am making and which other Senators have made in respect of the lengthy debates in this House. To be fair, it is not simply my party that has concerns, as people outside this House, ranging from local authority managers to members of Fine Gael and local government representatives, also have concerns. Consequently, for all these reasons, I have tabled this amendment, which I again intend to press to a vote, because I cannot support the progression of the Bill and certainly cannot support the establishment of Irish Water.
While I believe we have gone over much of this ground, in respect of amendment No. 45, the memorandum and articles of association are a requirement of the Companies Act to which Irish Water is subject in respect of governance. This is the reason I must oppose amendment No. 45. The key arguments made with regard to Irish Water-Uisce Éireann pertain to privatisation, and people on all sides of the House have expressed to me their worries that there would not be and cannot be, privatisation of the company. I refer to section 39 of the Bill, as amended on Committee Stage, which is on page 30 of the Bill as published. This is a Government amendment that was accepted by virtue of the votes yesterday. It states the Act of 2013 is amended in section 5 with the provisions, "The Board shall not alienate the share issued to it in accordance with subsection (4)", "The Minister shall not alienate the shares issued to him or her in accordance with subsection (4)" and "The Minister for Finance shall not alienate the shares issued to him or her in accordance with subsection (4)". This means this legislation, by way of a Government amendment, in the view of the Attorney General is copperfastened to the effect that it cannot be privatised.
In other words, the shares cannot be sold or alienated.
Unless there is new legislation.
Yes, unless there is new legislation, but the Water Services Acts clearly state that a water resource cannot be sold. This affirms the principle the Senator and everybody else, including myself, wants, namely, that it cannot and will not be sold. With respect to everybody, that is exceptionally clear.
Regarding all the other issues the Senator raised, we debated them and I am satisfied the replies are on the record.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 16.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Whelan, John.
- Zappone, Katherine.
Níl
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Mark.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- Power, Averil.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- Walsh, Jim.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Ivana Bacik and Paul Coghlan; Níl, Senators David Cullinane and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 46 is in the names of Senators Cullinane, Ó Clochartaigh and Reilly. I call on Senator Cullinane to move the amendment.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 15, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(5) Irish Water will be subject to the Freedom of Information Acts.”.
This is one of the amendments that we withdrew on Committee Stage and said that we would submit again on Report Stage in the hope that the Minister of State might be able to support it. If I remember correctly, the Minister of State said that the Minister with responsibility for this area was considering this specific issue and that there might be scope for the amendment to be accepted or for the Government to deal with this in some way. I hope that is the case because it is important that Irish Water is subject to freedom of information legislation. After the lengthy discussions we have had on a range of issues and concerns I am sure that lots of freedom of information requests will be submitted.
The Bill will be guillotined at 4 p.m., despite my opposition to it and to the charges. I want to thank the Minister of State for the lengthy discussions and debate we have had and for being so helpful in these debates. We have discussed this for 16 or 17 hours and it is not easy for a Minister of State to sit for 16 or 17 hours and listen to the same debate over and over, any more than it is for us. I thank him now because I may not get a chance to come in again. I hope that he will be able to support the amendment.
Ba mhaith liom tacú leis an leasú seo, ar na cúiseanna céanna le mo chomhghleacaí an Seanadóir Cullinane. Táimid tar éis cuid mhaith díospóireachta a dhéanamh faoin mBille seo agus dá mhéid díospóireachta atá déanta, is ea is mó ceisteanna atá ardaithe faoi. Ach an oiread le mo chomhghleacaí, táim an-bhuíoch don Aire faoi fhanacht anseo don díospóireacht ar fad, ach sílim go bhfuil an díospóireacht tar éis a léiriú go bhfuil deacrachtaí bunúsacha leis an mBille seo. Dá bhrí sin, tá sé níos tábhachtaí ná riamh go mbeadh an Bille ag teacht faoi An tAcht um Shaoráil Faisnéise, mar beidh ceisteanna go leor le cur. Sílim go mbeidh deacrachtaí le Uisce Éireann agus go mbeidh ceisteanna maidir leis an Rialaitheoir agus an gaol idir iad. Sílim go mbeidh ceisteanna an-mhóra maidir leis an aistriú sochmhainní anonn agus anall idir na comhairlí contae agus Uisce Éireann.
Ní dóigh liom gur ceisteanna iad seo a bhfuil daoine ag ardú ar mhaithe le bheith dána nó aon rud mar sin. Is ceisteanna dáiríre atá iontu. I ndeireadh thiar thall, nílimid ag caint ar na milliúin anseo, ach ar na billiúín d'airgead cáiníocóirí. Tá sé fíor tábhachtach go mbeidh trédhearcacht ó thaobh an chaoi a bhfuil airgead Stáit á chaitheamh, ó thaobh an chaoi a bhfuil seirbhísí á dtabhairt agus mar sin de. Ní hamháin go bhfuil na ceisteanna sin ardaithe anseo againne, tá siad á ardú sna meáin, ag státsheirbhísigh sinsearacha sa Stát, agus tá siad ardaithe linne, sula dtáinig muid ag an díospóireacht seo, ag ár gcuid comhairleoirí contae i gceantair éagsúla. Dá bhrí sin, sílim go bhfuil géarghá go mbeadh An tAcht um Shaoráil Faisnéise i bhfeidhm ón gcéad lá, má tá seans dá laghad le bheith ag Uisce Éireann.
Thug an tAire moladh dúinn gur ceart dúinn a bheith ag cur síos na ceisteanna anseo agus á dtarraingt isteach os comhair na fo-choistí, ach i ndáiríre píre, tuigeann an tAire, ó bheith mar Theachta ar an bhFreasúra, go minic nuair a thagann na feidhmeannaigh seo os comhair na coistí Dála, go bhfuil siad an-mhaith ar fad gan a bheith ag freagairt ceisteanna. Tugann siad freagraí agus imíonn siad anonn agus anall agus go minic ní bhfaigheann muid an t-eolas. Le go leor de na rudaí is suntasaí atá faighte amach maidir le eagrais Stáit anuas tríd na blianta, is tríd An tAcht um Shaoráil Faisnéise a tharla a leithéid.
Ar an dtaobh eile, cuirfinn ceist ar an Aire cén dochar atá ann é seo a chur san Acht. Cén dochar a bheadh ann? Ní dhéanann sé dochar dá laghad. Ní bheadh costas breise ar bith ar an Stát má chuireann an tAire seo isteach san Acht. Ní fhéadfadh sé ach leas a dhéanamh. Deireann an tAire go bhfuil sé ar son trédhearcachta, oscailteachta agus nach mbeadh aon rud dá cheilt anseo nó nach gceapfadh daoine go bhfuil rud éigin á cheilt. Má choinníonn an tAire amach an leasú seo, beidh daoine ag iarraidh a fháil amach céard atá le ceilt ag Uisce Éireann. Níor mhaith linn go dtarlódh sé sin.
Táimid buíoch don Aire faoin am a chaith sé linn ar an díospóireacht seo ar fad.
I support this important amendment. I cannot imagine there would be any kind of commercial sensitivity around this. It is a utility and we need information and to be able to get at the facts. There is a curious system of "ring a ring a rosie", where, for example, there are city managers taking up posts and there are all kinds of interconnections between former and past issues. I am not saying there is anything sinister in this, and it may be very useful - I do not know. There is concern in Dublin City Council, for example, about the way in which it has been treated and the fact it claims it is not being paid for €2 billion of assets. Most of it is leaky pipes so I do not suppose there would be an enormous international market, but perhaps there would and I am being naive in thinking there would not be. There is also the question of the council being left with the pensions of people who it is no longer employing, which might need further investigation, as does the question of equity in charging. While I cannot imagine it would happen with this Government involving the Labour Party, although it is no longer given to wearing socialist clothing, if there was any move towards privatisation by a subsequent Government, we would need to have this freedom of information available unless there are specific reasons against it. If the Minister has already given such reasons, I apologise because I was at a meeting with one of his other colleagues.
This is a very important amendment proposed by our colleagues, Senators Ó Clochartaigh and Cullinane. It is to be inserted in page 15, between lines 9 and 10, where the general heading is "Directions of Minister". I am worried about this aspect without a freedom of information context. Thus, if a Minister says "I want it built in my constituency" or "I want X,Y and Z pipes to be used in it", people should know this. That is why freedom of information is important. The Bill states: "Irish Water shall comply with a direction given to it." Are we going to allow it to respond in any way other than touching the forelock? The Bill also states: "The Minister shall not give a direction ... without first consulting the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources." I would prefer that the entire Cabinet was consulted. Incorporeal Cabinet meetings cost us a lot of money in 2008. The sort of dictatorial elements in the directions of the Minister require ventilation, and I believe freedom of information is most useful in this regard. I am happy to support the amendment.
I thank the Senators for the contributions from all sides of the House. While we have had a lot of time to discuss the amendments, given their nature I would have no difficulty going on all night because I believe this is very important. However, I accept the decision of the House. In particular, I believe the debate has helped inform accountability, which is what the questions that have been raised are all about.
I want to read what the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform said on this issue:
Irish Water was only recently established and another Bill is under way [that is this Bill] ... which will provide for a structured reporting mechanism to the Oireachtas and the regulatory authorities. That Bill will assign responsibility for economic regulation to the Commission for Energy Regulation, putting Irish Water in the same position as regards clarity and transparency in economic performance and conduct as, for example, the energy companies. In addition, up to 15% of households receive their water from privately operated group water schemes and some commercial enterprises source their own water supplied by private wells. Irish Water will operate in a highly regulated environment, closely monitored by statutory agencies. There are several layers of accountability and transparency envisaged in the legislation before the House. I believe Irish Water should come within the ambit of freedom of information. However, it is not ready to do this yet. I am proposing to exempt it with a view to including it when it is up and running.
I believe there is a commitment to include it once it is up and running, which will be from 1 January. However, it is the role of the Minister, Deputy Howlin, to deal with that specific issue, not my role. I am happy the Minister has said clearly he believes it should be under the Freedom of Information Act, and I believe that is the case. Tháinig na tuarimí a nochtaíodh anseo ó ghach taobh den Teach. Tuigim nach féidir le daoine cuidiú leis an mBille go hiomlán. Tuigim go bhfuil sé ar intinn ag cuid de na cainteoirí vótáil ina choinne agus go bhfuil sé ar intinn ag daoine eile vótáil ar a shon. Ba díospóireacht an-mhaith a bhí againn agus tá súil agam nuair a thiocfaidh mé ar ais sar i bhfad le Bille nua eile go mbeidh an méid céanna díospóireachta againn. Molaim an Seanad mar gur féidir díriú níos fearr ar an mBille anseo.
Maith an fear.
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 27.
Tá
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Mark.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- Power, Averil.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Walsh, Jim.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
- Zappone, Katherine.
Níl
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Donnell, Marie-Louise.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- Whelan, John.
Tellers: Tá, Senators David Cullinane and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh; Níl, Senators Ivana Bacik and Paul Coghlan.
Amendment declared lost.
As it is now after 4 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the House: "That the Government amendments not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill and that the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration and passed."
The Seanad divided by electronic means.
Under Standing Order 62(3)(b) I request that the division be taken again other than by electronic means.
Question put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 18.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- 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.
- Whelan, John.
- Zappone, Katherine.
Níl
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Mark.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- Power, Averil.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- Walsh, Jim.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Ivana Bacik and Paul Coghlan; Níl, Senators Trevor Ó Clochartaigh and Diarmuid Wilson.
Question declared carried.