Axing of Water Charges Is Within EU Law'

Axing of water charges is within EU
law
Friday, March 03, 2017
Ireland is not subject to the spectre of massive fines or
penalties for scrapping water charges thanks to the
freedom available to member states to set their own rules
over the EUs water laws, according to Fianna Fil.
In lengthy legal advice published last night, Michel

Martins party put further pressure on the Government to
justify its reasons for not permanently abolishing
household water charges.
Political parties are at an impasse on deciding the future of
water charges in Ireland, ahead of a crunch meeting of an
Oireachtas committee next week which must report to
the Dil within days.
Amid threats that the Coalition could collapse, the
Government and Fianna Fil are divided on whether a so-
called excess charge should remain for households
wasting water.
Housing Minister Simon Coveney said yesterday that
normal water bills would be abolished but Ireland was
obliged under EU law to charge households using excess
amounts.
Water charges are gone, theyre going to be abolished,
said Mr Coveney. Normal usage for households across the
country will be paid for through general taxation.
"But there needs to be a consequence for people who
waste large volumes of water. We have a legal obligation
to make sure that happens but that is also the right thing
to do.
His position, backed by Taoiseach Enda Kenny, puts the
Government on a collision course with Fianna Fil, whose
spokesman Barry Cowen warned that if Mr Coveney
refuses to legislate to scrap charges, it is him that is
bringing down the Government.
Fianna Fil went one step further last night by publishing
private legal advice which backs their claim that Ireland is
not breaching EU law by scrapping charges.
The advice sets out why Ireland is exempt from charges, a
position which dismisses any suggestion of EU penalties
applying.
The 33-page document says Ireland has a wide
discretion as to how it complies with the EUs water
framework directive.
Barristers Darren Lehane and Conleth Bradley say EU laws
do not require all countries to have the same rules, as
there is no complete harmonisation among member
states regarding water. It suggests states, according to the
directive, can decide not to charge households as there is
no requirement for cost recovery to rely on individual
consumption.
However, Mr Kenny insisted his Government would not
implement legislation on water charges that is illegal.
The Government says the attorney general, the EU, and an
expert group all agree it is illegal, with some suggestions
Ireland would face 50m in fines if charges are abolished.
Speaking in Brussels, Mr Kenny hinted the water
committee might get extra time.
I would expect them to deliberate on that and continue
their work until such time as they bring forward their
views and their recommendations to the Oireachtas, he
said.
Meanwhile, it is understood that Green Party senator and
committee member Grace OSullivan is willing to support
Fine Gaels push for an excess charge but only if there
is a guarantee of a referendum on keeping Irish Water in
public ownership. This is in line with commitments she has
given to the civil engagement group in the Seanad.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/axing-of-water-charges-is-
within-eu-law-444302.html
Concerns raised on lack of separation

of storm water and sewage
Irish Water has said it is liaising with the OPW and its
consultants about concerns that a 8m flood prevention
scheme might not work properly if there is no division
between storm water and sewage drainage.
Sean ORiordan
Fears have been raised by some residents and businesses

that there is no proper separation of drains in a Cork
satellite town.
In the past, the lack of adequate, separate storm water
drains has led to rain water cascading into sewerage
systems, resulting in houses and businesses getting
flooded with contaminated water.
This concern has been raised with Irish Water, which is
responsible for such drainage, as part of public
consultation into flood relief project in Glanmire.
An Irish Water spokeswoman said it has highlighted to the
OPW and its consultants the issue of the combined
network and overflows being a potential risk to the flood
protection measures.
We have requested the OPW to ensure this issue is
considered in their design and Irish water will be engaging
with the OPW during the design process, the
spokeswoman said.
Millions of euro worth of damage was caused to around
more than 60 homes and around 20 businesses as a result
of major flooding in Glanmire in June 2012.
Many of them were contaminated with sewage and further
houses were similarly contaminated during a less severe
flood in December 2015.
One residents association in the area made a lengthy
submission as part of the public consultation process in
which it claimed several planning permissions were
granted in Glanmire which should never had been allowed
because the buildings were located on flood plains.
They sought assurances that this would never happen
again.
Residents also claimed that various conditions attached to
some of these developments were ignored by developers
and not subsequently enforced by the local authority.
Assurances have also been sought that the sewage
situation be dealt with through an interagency approach
involving Irish Water, the Health & Safety Authority, Cork
County Council, OPW, Inland Fisheries and the Department
of Environment.
Consultants say that when completed, the project will
protect 106 properties, of which 78 are residential, from
the threat of future flooding.
A number of remedial works will be undertaken along the
River Glashaboy from Sallybrook Industrial Estate
downstream to Glanmire village.
Scrapped 100 water grant is still
being paid
A small number of people are still receiving the
controversial 100 water conservation grant, despite the
payment being scrapped more than a year ago.
The Department of Housing and Local Government

confirmed the situation at the latest meeting of the Dils
public accounts committee yesterday.
Speaking during a four-hour meeting with the cross-party
group as the ongoing water charges standoff between Fine
Gael and Fianna Fil threatens to bring down the
Government, officials said in 2015 that 89m was made
available to pay for the grant. That was the year for the
latest figures.
However, despite the fact the grant was scrapped last
year when water charges were suspended after the 2016
general election, department secretary general John
McCarthy confirmed a small number of the 890,104 people
who had applied for the payment in 2015 are continuing to
receive it.
A Department of Housing spokesperson last night
confirmed this rate was 3,197 in 2016 and three so far this
year, and relates to cases where someone applied in 2015
but had yet to receive the payment.
The Department of Social Protection, which administered
the water conservation grant on behalf of the department,
made grant payments totalling just over 89m in respect
of 890,104 applications under the scheme.
A small number of residual payments continue to be made
to householders who have an entitlement to the 2015
water conservation grant, said Mr McCarthy.
Due to the fact the confidence and supply deal between
Fine Gael and Fianna Fil in the aftermath of the 2016
general election included plans to suspend water charges
until at least April 1 this year, the grant first introduced in
November 2014, was scrapped.
This is because it no longer served its official purpose of
encouraging people to sign up to Irish Water for
conservation and environmental reasons, and its
opposition alleged unofficial reason of being a de facto
bribe to the public to register with the utility.
The revelation that it is continuing to be paid to a small
number of people is likely to lead to more questions over
the chaotic nature of the Irish Water system as the
Oireachtas water committee struggles to find agreement
on the utility.
Meanwhile, a junior minister has said that there needs to
be a reasonable approach to water charges and that the
cross-party Oireachtas water committee needs to be given
time to try to complete its work.
The committee is expected to produce a report on whether
to return or scrap water charges by March 13, before its
findings are voted on by the Dil before the end of this
month.
However, the standoff between Fine Gael and Fianna Fil
over the issue means it is now likely the report will be
delayed a number of weeks, meaning the vote will also be
pushed back, potentially forcing an election.
Addressing the issue yesterday, junior minister for the
diaspora Joe McHugh said Fine Gael wants to find a
solution to the stalemate.
Im sure people within Fianna Fil, who I speak to
privately as well, that can find a solution to this impasse,
he said.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/scrapped-100-water-grant-is-
still-being-paid-444292.html
Families 'could see water charges

refund'
Update 9.30am: It has been reported that families could
receive a refund on their water bills.
According to the Irish Independent, Fianna Fil and Fine

Gael have reached a compromise - following a week of
turmoil on the issue.
It is believed households will get back up to 325 under

the deal.
Earlier:
Sinn Fin has described the Taoiseach's comments on

water charges as "bogus".
Enda Kenny yesterday insisted Fine Gael will not facilitate

any laws to scrap all domestic water charges - which the
party says would be illegal.
The Oireachtas Committee discussing the future of water

has given parties until later today to make new proposals
on whether the public should be charged for excessive
use.
"Well, the Taoiseach's comments from yesterday are

completely bogus," said Sinn Fein's spokesman on water is
Eoin O'Broin.
"Scotland has no domestic water charges and they are
fully compliant with EU law, Northern Ireland has no
domestic water charges and they are fully compliant with
EU law.
"So, so as long as we meet the environmental objective

contained in EU legislation, which Sinn Fin believes we
can, then the issue of charges is irrelevant."
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/famili
es-could-see-water-charges-refund-779794.html
Households to get 325
in water bill refunds
Water refunds on the way as FG offers
olive branch to FF in row over charges
Kevin Doyle and Cormac McQuinn
March 3 2017
Fianna Fils Barry Cowen speaking outside Leinster

House. Photo: Tom Burke
Almost one million households can expect
water charge refunds of up to 325 as part
of a compromise between Fine Gael and
Fianna Fil.
The two parties remain at loggerheads over the total
abolition of charges - but Housing Minister Simon
Coveney now accepts there is no point chasing people with
unpaid bills.
Mr Coveney previously said non-payers should be pursued
because refunds would set "a dangerous precedent".
However, the Irish Independent understands he will cede
ground on this issue as an olive branch to Fianna Fil.
One source estimated the cost of refunding bill payers at
162m.
Mr Coveney is also prepared to sign a ministerial order to
extend the current suspension of water charges beyond
March 31.
This would happen if a consensus on their abolition
cannot be found in the coming days.
Read more: Niall O'Connor: FF keeps the rural vote on
tap as water charge anger streams out
In a formal submission to be made to the Committee on
the Future Funding of Water today, Fine Gael will
continue to argue that charges must be retained for people
who waste water.
In line with Mr Coveney's public statements over recent
days, the party's negotiating team will state that some
form of charging is necessary to avoid massive fines from
the EU.
They want the 900,000 water meters already in the
ground to be maintained, all newly built homes to have a
meter installed and 'opt-in' opportunities for home owners
who want to get a meter.
However, Fianna Fil's water spokesman Barry Cowen has
told the Irish Independent his party believes Fine Gael
"wants to retain the billing system as a method of
capture". He said domestic meters should be considered
redundant because "the regime is going and everything to
do with it".
There is growing expectation that the water committee,
chaired by Independent senator Pdraig Cidigh, will
not be able to reach a compromise on charges.
Sources on both sides of the debate expect the 20
members of the cross-party committee to be split down the
middle on the issue.
Read more: Coveney hatches plan to turn tables on FF in
battle over water bills
Crucially, Fianna Fil is insisting that excessive usage be
dealt with through the 2007 Water Services Act, which
provides for punishment for people who wilfully abuse and
overuse water.
Mr Cowen said his party would be willing for amendments
to be made to the act if necessary.
However, Mr Coveney believes this will not satisfy
Ireland's legal requirements under the EU's Water
Framework Directive.
Abolished
"Water charges are gone. They are going to be abolished,"
the minister admitted yesterday.
"Normal usage for households across the country will be
paid for through normal taxation.
"But there needs to be consequences for people who waste
large quantities of water.
"There's a legal obligation for that to happen but it's also
the right thing to do."
He added that it "makes sense" to use existing meters to
catch households wasting water.
Fine Gael's submission will state that the Commission for
Energy Regulation (CER) should be responsible for
deciding what is considered excessive usage, but Fianna
Fil wants the figure set by politicians.
"If the CER estimated the average person uses 123 litres a
day, then excessive use should be set at three times.
"But that's just me having a stab at it," Mr Cowen said.
"That's us engaging with it, they're not."
The minister said he wanted to find "a middle ground that
everybody can live with politically".
"I think there has been enough debate and division and
angst on water without this being scaled up into
something it shouldn't be," said Mr Coveney.
Despite protests, around 975,000 people paid domestic
water charges at some stage during the five billing cycles
before charges were suspended last summer.
The maximum paid by a single person under the scheme is
200, while a family paid up to 325.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/households-
to-get-325-in-water-bill-refunds-35498144.html
ironic to see barry cowen trying to look like the hero on this. we can't
forget it was his brother who was taoiseach at the time when the banks
were bailed out.
this country.
Conceived by Fianna Fail, implemented by Fine Gael. Supervised by Phil
Hogan first and then Alan Kelly, managed by John Tierney. Let's be
honest, IW was never going to amount to anything but an expensive
failure.
Our top politicians and civil servants tried something simple, to set up a
state utility, and failed miserably. How can they claim to be fit to run a
country? HSE, Tusla, Eircode, electronic voting machines, effective
policing, public transport ........ the list of failures goes on and on. It
would not be unfair to call us a functioning failed state.
FF, too little too late. You, and the banks you bailed out, wrecked this
country, and then FG had the nerve to blame us!
Neither of the main parties are worthy my vote. Both are intent on
lining their own pockets, while doffing their caps to the EU and
grabbing every cent from our pockets.
I do not know how I will vote in the next election, but I have never voted
for either of these parties and never will. I was a life long Labour party
voter, until they sold their souls for a place at the table, never again.
No head will roll.
They are on about water leaks and waste. What about the money leaks
and wastage from the Dail? They wanted to penalise in court and fine,
those that could not or would not pay, yet they get off the hook Scot-free
having squandered an absolute unadulterated fortune!
Those responsible for this disaster should be sacked without a pension.
Let's see how long they might survive in the private sector with their
levels of mismanagement of resources. Question is, who would be stupid
enough to hire any one of them??
'The minister said he wanted to find "a middle ground that everybody
can live with politically"'. The Blueshirts are absolutely desperate to save
a tiny bit of face here. Better they were sanctioned for wasting billions in
public money on a failed billing service and redundant water meters,
when that money could have been spent actually fixing faults in the
system, or on addressing the scandals in health, housing and
homelessness.
but here's the rub, FG promised major reform of the political
establishment, and end to the disgraceful practise of people on trolleys,
USC to go etc, etc, etc......none of these promises have been met instead
they've presided over the establishment of the largest quango this state
has seen, the worse homeless crisis we've seen in centuries, the largest
level's of patients on trolleys, the list goes on and on.
ironic to see barry cowen trying to look like the hero on this. we can't
forget it was his brother who was taoiseach at the time when the banks
were bailed out.
this country.
The downfall of the Labour party was very simply taken from the poor
the blind and the pensioners was there downfall and telling porkies to
the people while doing it made it worse. Therefore FG will soon find
out the same the people of Ireland cant stand been lied to by political
people that are overpaid and Cant do there job.
Another Cowen trying to stretch his muscles...personally I have had
enough of those guys.....NOW TO WATER CHARGES I FIRMLY
BELIEVE THAT THE WATER WASTERS OF THIS COUNTRY
SHOULD PAY AND IM AWARE OF RICH PEOPLE IN SOUTH
DUBLIN WHO HAVE NO PROBLEM IM LETTING THE SPRINKLERS
RUN AL DAY EVERY DAY TO KEEP THEIR GRASS GREEN...I
GENUINELY DONT SEE WHY THOSE PEOPLE DONT PAY FOR
WATER
Water solution is still the 8bn
conundrum
Jim Power
A clean and safe water supply is vital for our economic

prosperity, writes Jim Power.
A couple of years ago, I based an Irish Examiner column

on the experience I had driving through California in the
midst of a frightening drought.
This experience brought home to me just how important
water is as a commodity and put in context the rubbish
that was being spouted by much of the anti-water charge
campaign in this country.
Upon my return, I was greeted with a torrent of vitriolic
personal abuse from keyboard warriors, most of whom
operated under the cowardly veil of anonymity.
This week, the water charge issue came back into the
limelight with apparent strong disagreement emerging
amongst the members of the Oireachtas committee that
was set up to look into the issue of water charges, which
in itself was an attempt to kick the issue down the road.
However, we have now reached another cul de sac on that
road and definitive decisions will have to be made on how
Irelands water infrastructure will be brought up to
standard.
My personal belief is we should pay for water and the
more we use the more we should pay. A generous
allowance should be part of the deal and account should
be taken of ability to pay.
I also believe the setting up of a utility to focus on water is
the right way to go. However, the manner in which the last
Government approached the issue was all wrong and
displayed a remarkable degree of political cowardice and
incompetence.
Be that as it may, it is vital that we address all of these
issues now, before it is too late.
The reality is a guaranteed supply of clean and safe water
is vital for the health and the economic prosperity of the
country. Another reality is that these conditions currently
do not exist.
Water quality in many parts of the country is poor and
often injurious to health; the pipe network is of poor
physical quality and in some cases poisonous; and we are
still pumping raw sewage into the sea.
All of these issues are totally unacceptable, not to mention
the fact that they are exposing Ireland to potentially
significant fines from the EU.
It is estimated that the Irish water infrastructure will
require investment in excess of 8bn over the coming
years to bring it up to an acceptable standard.
The question is where this money might come from? We
have three options do nothing, increase taxes or divert
expenditure away from other vital public services.
The anti-water charge brigade argue it should come from
general taxation and that we are already paying for water
through general taxation. If that is the case, we are clearly
not paying enough as evidenced by the unacceptably low
level of investment in the water infrastructure.
The truth is if you are not in the income tax net, then you
are paying little if anything into the tax system to
fund water. It is great to argue that taxes should be
increased to pay for the water system, but this is a very
easy argument to make if one is not in the income tax
system in the first place.
For those of us who are, the burden of personal taxation
has become very penal over the past decade and we now
have one of the most progressive tax systems in the
world. Any further increase in that burden will destroy
incentives and undermine the economy.
The other option, of course, is to take money from other
areas of public sector provision. However, we are now in a
situation where the garda are struggling to provide vital
services after years of serious under-investment and the
same can be said about health and education.
The ultimate problem is there is a segment of the
population that is not prepared to pay for anything, as
evidenced by the dumping of rubbish along rural roads as
well as the water campaign.
Unfortunately, a large part of the political system is
pandering to those people and is promoting the idea that
it is acceptable to break the law of the land.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/water-solution-is-still-the-
8bn-conundrum-444289.html
Fianna Fil legal advice gives all
clear to ban or suspend water
charges
Updated / Thursday, 2 Mar 2017
The 33-page document opines that it is open to Ireland to ban or

suspend domestic water charges
This is the actual article body
Fianna Fil has published legal advice it received on
whether Ireland can ban water charges in a way that
is compatible with European Union laws.
The party is in favour of abolishing all charges and
believes the issue of excessive usage can be dealt
with by existing legislation that provides for fines and
imprisonment.
Fianna Fil received advice from barristers Darren
Lehane and Conleth Bradley in relation to Ireland's
EU obligations on water charges.
The 33-page document states that in their opinion it
is open to Ireland to ban or suspend domestic water
charges.
https://www.fiannafail.ie/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/FF-Legal-Advice-Water.pdf
It states that the European Union's water framework
directive does not seek to achieve complete
harmonisation of the rules of member states
regarding water.
It also states there is no specific requirement in the
directive for cost recovery to rely on individual
consumption.
The lawyers also advise that the absence of pricing
for water service activities will not necessarily
jeopardise the directive's objectives.
The advice says that member states have wide
discretion in the area and that Ireland can avail of the
"established practice" exemption in the directive.
They say that it is for Ireland to determine what
"established practice" is and add it was an
established practice not to have domestic water
charges when the water directive was adopted.
The European Commission wrote to the independent

commission looking at water funding in November
2016.
In its letter, the commission stated "Ireland adopted
its river basin management plans in July 2010,
making a clear commitment to set up water charges
to comply with the provision on water pricing in Article
9(1) of the water framework directive.
"Ireland subsequently applied water charges. The
directive does not allow member states to revert to
any previous practice not entailing the recovery of
costs and the application of the polluter pays
principle."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0302/856776-water/
Metering has nothing to do with privatisation, but
everything to do with conserving a rare and precious
resource. We can't have people leaving their taps running
all day, constantly washing their cars and refilling their
swimming pools on a daily basis. This is the priority before
we even consider fixing the leaks in the delivery system.
The Attorney General, who is entirely independent of
government, has warned that we face billions in fines
from the EU if we don't bring in charges and complete the
metering roll out.
Meanwhile, it is understood that Green Party senator and
committee member Grace OSullivan is willing to support
Fine Gaels push for an excess charge but only if there
is a guarantee of a referendum on keeping Irish Water in
public ownership. This is in line with commitments she has
given to the civil engagement group in the Seanad."
Why did I share this particular paragraph? Because this is
at the heart of the scam.
I don't know how many ways I can get this message
through that if you put a corporate entity like Irish Water
anywhere near the constitution then you might as well
accept water charges right now.
"Sure it's a good thing to ensure IW can never be
privatised by referendum right?"
NO! NO! NO! NO!
That is the neoliberal trap that they want you to fall into!
Once you have a referendum putting Irish Water (the
corporate entity) into the constitution then you are iron
cladding water charges. The whole point of Irish Water's
existence is to meter your consumption and waste water
and then apply a bill to you and your house hold. It really
does nothing else because the Councils are still doing the
work on the ground fixing leaks.
The major factor here is that by accepting the continued
existence of IW then you are accepting that Water should
be metered, charged at a unit price determined by the
energy regulator and then passed on to you in the form of
a legally binding bill of debt which can then be dragged
out of you in court if you refuse to pay.
The absolute worst part of this monumentally stupid idea
is that after accepting IW in the context above, under EU
laws, this constitutes a market for water and under said
laws the market can be forced open to allow other private
providers in to sell you water.
They did this with the ESB and gas, they plan on pulling
the wool over your eyes and doing the same with water
with the CER handing out licences to set up here and
compete with Irish Water.
"Ah but IW can't be privatised so that's a good thing."
Who cares if it's privatised or not? That didn't stop an
explosion in private hospitals in a country that has a public
health system now did it?
Don't fall for this monumentally stupid and dangerous
suggestion.
Demand to put the WATER RESOURCE into the constitution
and see what they do. I guarantee that referendum won't
be so forthcoming
Lastly. Don't believe a single thing from Fianna Fil. They
are playing good cop bad cop. Don't fall for it. They are
trumpeting that they can rid us of "water charges" but
they never ever mention the "waste water charges" that
will most likely be necessary under the Irish Water regime
to fulfil the "polluter pays" principle which didn't matter in
Ireland's case until they set up Irish Water.
Water charges and politics
Thu, Mar 2, 2017
Sir, As Fianna Fil and Sinn Fin have such confidence
in their legal advice that Ireland will not face penalties
from the EU should we fail to introduce water charges
for excess use, I propose that they deal with Simon
Coveneys concerns by offering to pay any such fines
from their own party funds should this advice turn out to
be wrong. Yours, etc,
FRANK E BANNISTER,
Dublin 4.
Sir, Water is a human right, therefore we shouldnt
have to pay for it, goes the argument. We also need food
to survive but I havent heard anyone suggest we should
march into our local supermarket and demand bread
and milk as a human right.
Lets get real here. Clean, drinkable water costs dearly to
provide and we should all pay our share.
To abolish charges even for excessive usage is populist
madness. Yours, etc,
SALLY SWEENEY,
Carrigavantry,
Co Waterford.
A chara, The phoney war between Fine Gael and
Fianna Fil has recommenced about water charges. The
reported major rift between the parties will be quickly
removed. Their lust for power will predominate as usual.
One has to remember that it was the Fianna Fil/Green
government, of which Willie ODea and Michel Martin
were ministers, which agreed with the troika that water
charges would be implemented. Now Fianna Fil wont
agree to any charges despite its previous commitment. It
is shameless and will not act in a civic manner unless it
suits its political ambitions on the day. I think we are
entitled to hear the views of the other parties as to how
we can deal with this issue. Yours, etc,
DAVID J FITZGERALD,
Dn Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.
A chara, With the news that water charges are likely to
be repaid in full, I presume that, in the spirit of this
ongoing saga, this repayment will be made to everyone,
whether they paid their water charges or not. Is mise,
Sir, If we can believe the leaks coming from the
commission on water, we can be confident that even in
the unlikely event of a heatwave this summer, our lawns
and gardens will still be looking their best. Yours, etc,
JOHN EGAN,
Carlow.
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/water-charges-and-
politics-1.2993995
Water charges: FG to check
if excess use penalty meets
EU law
FF strongly criticises Coveney for intervening in water
committee, says it is unprecedented
about an hour ago Updated: 18 minutes ago
Sarah Bardon
Senior Ministers have supported Simon Coveneys position on the water

issue. Photograph: Eric Luke/The Irish Times
Fine Gael has agreed to examine if penalties for excessive
usage of water will meet European law in a proposed
compromise with Fianna Fil.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/water-charges-fg-to-check-
if-excess-use-penalty-meets-eu-law-1.2996629?
mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Ffg-agrees-to-
examine-if-excess-water-use-penalty-meets-eu-law-1.2996629
Dublin City Council passes a
motion to have the jailed water
protesters released
March 3, 2015
Amid chants of fascists, Dublin City Council passed a motion

calling for the immediate release of the four jailed anti-water
charge protesters.
The motion was proposed by People Before Profits Cllr. Brd
Smith and was overwhelmingly passed by 27 votes to 22.
Sinn Fin and a number of other left leaning groupings

supported the motion, but it was opposed by Fine Gael,
Labour and Fianna Fil members.
There were also calls for a termination of the 20m exclusion
zone around water meter installers.
Cllr. Smith argued that, the jailing protesters is a complete
waste of time and public monies.
Remind the Minister of Justice (of which there is little for
the common folk as your system has proved over and over
again) about this post. Protesting is not a crime. There Is A
People's Movement Afoot The Likes Of Which You Have
Never Seen Before. FFFGers & Labour Are No Longer
Parties Of The People. You Are Parties of The 'State' & The
EU
Memory is a potent force. Left my hometown as a
teenager. Had superb friends but our lives went in
different directions. As they continued in school I
graduated to becoming a hobo. The street gave birth to
paranoia and all ability to engage was lost, followed by
those friendships. Ended up hating the hometown and the
panic attacks it inspired. The looks. The judgements. The
valley of the squinting windows. Reality was probably
contrary to perception but fear makes you sees what it
wants you to see.
Finding reasons to stay away became easy. Returned one
final time for my mother's funeral and quietly nodded
farewell to the place forever. That was a few years ago.
Then we made 'Patrick's Day' and the RTE Guide decided
to hold a preview screening competition in the old
hometown. The fear returned.
But a woman who had read about the film made contact.
She's a young teacher in the old secondary school we
used to go to. It wasn't the most upmarket of schools but
it was ours and we wouldn't have swapped it for any of the
posher shitholes. She told me about an "Eiffel Tower" in
her classroom that has apparently been there for thirty
years and someone told her that I had made it.
Had no idea what the hell she was talking about and asked
her to photograph it. She did. Held up by one of the kids in
her class. The memory hit like a train and I was twelve-
years-old again. It was wonderfully generous on her part
to make contact. And an incredible testament to the
school that they had kept it.
The fear was still there but we had the RTE Guide
screening of the film and the hometown gave three
standing ovations. Followed by extraordinary write-ups in
their local newspapers. Then I was contacted to see if I'd
be Grand Marshall of the hometown's Saint Patrick's Day
Parade.
I wasn't in Ireland so it wasn't possible. But if people had
told that homeless teenager when he left that town thirty
years ago that he'd be considered as Grand Marshall of
the Paddy's Day parade he'd have pissed himself laughing.
Then pissed on their shoes.
That was two years ago. Still hits hard. Hometowns, huh?
Whether you want them to or not, they get to you.
Savour the moment - We have won the Battle let's get
ready to win the War. All the talk of Water NOT being a Red
Line issue
People Power - will you stand again
FF water paper Refunds, no
charges, no new meters
Updated / Friday, 3 Mar 2017
Fianna Fil has submitted its policy paper on water to the

Oireachtas committee
Fianna Fil has said excessive water usage can be
identified and curbed by using existing water
framework and the use of district water meters.
In its policy paper submission to the Oireachtas
Future Funding of Domestic Water Services
Committee, the party said it wants the charges
abolished in full but accepts the recommendation
from last year's Expert Commission on the need to
curb excessive water usage.
It believes this can be achieved through district water
meters and the existing meter framework as currently
conducted in Scotland and Wales.
It also noted that the committee did not hear any
evidence that there was any wide-scale abuse here
and the vast majority of wastage can be attributed to
leakages.
Fianna Fil reaffirms its position that it accepts the
need to curb excessive water usage through existing
legislation which it says would satisfy the "polluter
pays principle" and EU laws.
The legislation allows for those who abuse water to
be fined up to 5,000 and the Fianna Fil paper says
it is willing to strengthen or amend this legislation.
In the paper, Fianna Fil also states that it
is disappointed and surprised that Minister for
Housing, Planning and Local Government Simon
Coveney intervened by outlining advice he had from
the Attorney General on Ireland's legal obligations
under the water framework directive.
While it is accepted that the Attorney General
provides advice to Government it would be
unprecedented that the Attorney General would
advise the Oireachtas, the paper reads.
The Committee had a full session in February where
various legal opinions were listened to and debated.
The paper points out that the State lost 22m on its
water charges regime in 2015 and that the EU
statistic agency Eurostat ruled that Irish Water is a
non-market agency and must stay on the State
balance sheet.
Fianna Fil says this was the reason Irish Water and
water charges were introduced.
It adds that no additional revenue will be available for
investment in the water infrastructure due to domestic
water charges and the billing system needs to be
scrapped.
It reaffirms that funding of domestic water services

should be financed via general taxation.
It also states that the party's own legal advice is clear
that its proposals are permissible under the EU laws.
Fianna Fil also opposes the commencement of any
further phases of the metering programme to tackle
leaks and wastage levels.
Instead, it wants the 148m under spend on metering
to date to be set aside for the roll out of
improvements to the district metering programme to
help detect leaks.
It also wants the EPA to receive a research grant to
support the development of water conservation
methods and the Building Energy Rating (BER)
system to be amended to include water conservation
as a core element of its assessment of homes.
It also believes the Department of Housing should
maintain the current levels of subsidisation for group
water schemes and supports for capital spending and
private wells as agreed in the Confidence and Supply
arrangement.
It calls for a review in co-ordination with the National
Federation of Group Water Schemes to assess the
amount of additional investment required to equalise
treatment between public mains users and private or
group water schemes users.
Fianna Fil wants those who paid their water charges
to be refunded by Revenue once proof of payment is
provided.
It says this should be cross referenced with
Department of Social Protection Water Conservation
Grant payments information to ensure there is no
over payment.
Coveney: No final decision on water charge
refunds
Minister Coveney has said it is "not necessarily the
case" that Fine Gael is open to refunding water
charges.
Speaking in Galway this morning, Mr Coveney said it
was now accepted that water charges would be
abolished for the vast majority of households.
But he said he was awaiting a recommendation on
refunds from the Oireachtas Committee on water
charges.
He would not be drawn on his own views on the
matter but said people who had paid charges should
not be disadvantaged.
Minister Coveney said there was still no agreement
on how to deal with people with excessive levels of
usage and said any solution had to be compliant with
the European Water Framework Directive.
He said while he would work with Fianna Fil to try
and find solutions, he would not recommend a course
of action that he knew to be both illegal and
irresponsible.
The minister said he wanted to reassure the public
that there was no intention to ever privatise the
country's water infrastructure.
He said there might be a need for a constitutional
amendment to enshrine that position but that he was
confident agreement on that issue could be easily
achieved.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0303/856923-water-charge/
Fianna Fil legal

advice gives all clear
to ban or suspend
water charges
Updated / Thursday, 2 Mar 2017

imprisonment.
charges.
regarding water.
consumption.

2016.
principle."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0302/856776-water/
Coveney rules out

water plan
contravening EU
directives
Updated / Wednesday, 1 Mar 2017
Charges for excessive use of water - above a free allowance - was
previously proposed by the independent committee which looked
at the issue
Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government
Simon Coveney has said that he will not introduce
water legislation that contravenes European Union
directives and exposes Ireland to large fines.
Half of those on the Oireachtas committee looking at
the future funding of water services have indicated
that they favour abolishing domestic charges and are
opposed to charging for the excessive use of water.
The committee has made no decision on the matter
but Fianna Fil, Sinn Fin and Anti-Austerity Alliance-
People Before Profit (AAA-PBP) say there should be
no charges.
Mr Coveney this evening accused Fianna Fil of
hardening its position by ruling out charges for
excess water use today.
Mr Coveney, who is the minister with responsibility for
the issue, said Fine Gael wanted a genuine
compromise.
He said the basis for this could be found in a draft
circulated by the committee today, insisting the
process was not over.
The 20-member Joint Committee on the Future
Funding of Domestic Water Services met today and
will again tomorrow to agree its final
recommendations for the future funding of domestic
water services.
So far ten members have stated they oppose water
charges.
Another eight have however indicated they want
charges for excessive use which was recommended
by the Independent Commission which looked at the
issue last year.
Two TDs on the committee have not stated their
views.
Critically, Fianna Fil members indicated they are
opposing any charges for excessive use and TD
Willie O'Dea said there is legislation in place which is
not being enforced which penalises people who use
excessive amounts of water.
He said a district metering system would pick this up

as opposed to domestic metering.
Sinn Fin and AAA-PBP say there is no evidence of
excessive usage by households.
Labour however says taxpayers should not have to
pay for those who use excessive amounts.
The committee has not made a final decision and
ultimately the Dil will vote on it.
Fine Gael TD Jim Daly, a member of the committee,
has said that he is opposed to refunds.
He said the law of the land as it applied at the time
should be maintained.
However, he said that the reality of new politics is that
while Fine Gael and independents are in
Government, Fianna Fil is in power and carries the
swaying vote.
Mr Daly said that Fianna Fil indicated this morning
that the party is in favour of returning the money to
people who have paid.
He said this is unusual as Fianna Fil signed up to
water charges on the arrival of the Troika into the
country seven years ago.
Committee member Paul Murphy of the AAA-
PBP said he expects those who paid for water
charges to be refunded.
Speaking on RT's Today with Sean O'Rourke, Mr
Murphy said the refund is "not a done deal" but there
is huge pressure on "establishment parties" to agree
to it.
He said it needs to be recognised that it is not
possible to pursue non-payers.
He said: "I think those who did pay should get their
money back. I think many people were pressured,
bullied, forced into paying. They have, of course, to
thank all of those who refused to pay for creating a
political situation whereby it's very difficult for the
establishment parties to go after non-payment."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0228/856147-water-oireachtas-
charges/
FF TD Cowen says
water row 'could
bring down
Government'
Updated / Wednesday, 1 Mar 2017
Barry Cowen pointed to the 'confidence and supply' agreement
Fianna Fil's Barry Cowen has said if the
Government does not abide by the 'confidence and
supply' agreement with his party on the issue of
water charges, it could bring down the Government.
It comes after Minister for Housing, Planning,
Community and Local Government Simon Coveney
said he would not introduce water legislation that
contravened EU directives and exposed the country
to large fines.
He said any water strategy needed to have a polluter
pays principle.
Fianna Fil says fines are a distant prospect and can
be averted.
Mr Cowen said that an Oireachtas committee set up
to consider the issue has not concluded its work, and
the intervention by Mr Coveney on the water issue
was premature, political and unprecedented.
The positions of Fianna Fil and Fine Gael on water
charges held up the talks to form the minority
government and it could now threaten its
continuation.
Their members both sit on the committee to discuss
the funding of water and it is currently veering
towards abolishing all charges including charges for
excessive usage, which Fine Gael strongly opposes.
Today's meeting of the Joint Committee on the Future
Funding of Domestic Water Services has ended
without agreement on how to proceed.
It is understood there were "testy
exchanges" between Fianna Fil and Fine Gael
members at the meeting, with Fianna Fil claiming
Fine Gael was refusing to set out its position.
Both parties are now to table position papers by
Friday and the committee will meet again next
Tuesday.
Live: Political updates

Earlier, Mr Cowen said it was up to Fine Gael to
quantify excessive usage.
He pointed to the deal with Fine Gael, which states
the Government will facilitate the passage of
legislation on the issue agreed by the Oireachtas.
He also said Fianna Fil was not opposed to charging
people for excessive usage but wanted to use
existing legislation, which would provide for fines or
imprisonment.
However, he ruled out taking thousands of people to
court or reducing their water supply and he also said
it was up to Fine Gael to quantify excessive usage.
Mr Cowen said he had not been convinced that there
was wanton abuse of water and pointed to leakage
as an issue.
He said it was not clear if the Attorney General had
considered the existing legislation and his party
would publish its own legal advice.
Separately, Mr Coveney said the Government was
trying to find a compromise but it needed to be
consistent with Ireland's legal obligations.
So far there is no sign of a compromise unless one
side backs down.
Coveney 'happy' to work with compromises on
water charges
Mr Coveney earlier said he is happy to work with
compromises that politicians are working towards
regarding water charges for "normal use" in houses.
Mr Coveney, who was before the Oireachtas
committee on housing this morning, was asked by
AAA-People Before Profit TD Ruth Coppinger if he
was going to implement legislation to abolish water
charges.
The minister said the position of the Government has
been to try to find a compromise that the Dil can
support, that parties can work towards and that can
be accepted broadly across society.
However, Mr Coveney said compromise needed to be
consistent with Ireland's legal obligations under the
water framework directive.
"All I said yesterday is that I don't see how I
can introduce legislation against the advice of
the Attorney General, when I know that it's
likely to lead to court action by the European
Commission and fines imposed on Ireland".
He said in order to be compliant with commitments
under the water frame work directive, there needed to
be some "polluter pays principle" with regard to the
water strategy "where there is a consequence for
wasting large volumes of water".
The minister said he was asked whether he would
introduce legislation against the advice coming from
the Attorney General's office and he reiterated that he
could not do that.
Mr Coveney added that he is happy to work with all
parties to find a way forward because the issue has
"dogged Irish politics for far too long".
O'Dea wants to see Attorney General's advice

This morning Fianna Fil's Willie O'Dea said he
would like to see the Attorney General's advice on
water charges.
Speaking on RT's Morning Ireland, he said there is
strong legal opinion that is contrary to that expressed
by the Attorney General.
Mr O'Dea, who is a member of the water committee,
added that Fianna Fil is convinced that the Attorney
General's legal opinion is incorrect and said attorney
generals have "gotten it wrong in the past".
"We are very firm in our opinion, and the legal advice
does bear it out, that there is a contrary legal view to
that being expressed by the Attorney General and we
are convinced that that view is the correct one.
"I would like to see the Attorney General's advice
actually, we haven't been exposed to that - as yet.
"I think the minister has to take into account all legal
opinion and there's very strong legal opinion which
contradicts what the minister is telling us the Attorney
General says... attorney generals have gotten it
wrong in the past."
Mr O'Dea said ultimately Dil ireann will decide on
the future of water charges and the Government has
committed itself to implementing that decision.
He said he hoped that the situation can be wrapped
up by the end of March.
Mr O'Dea said Fianna Fil wanted to penalise people
for excessive use of water but did not want to do so
by setting up an expensive charging system, at a cost
to the taxpayer.
"The way this is being presented in the media is that
Fianna Fil is not in favour of charging people or
punishing people for excessive use of water. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
We want to punish people who are wasting
water but we don't want to do so by setting up
an expensive billing and charging system.
"We want to do it by properly implementing
legislation, which is already there - namely the 2007
Water Services Act, which provides for punishment
for people who wilfully abuse and over use water."
Fianna Fil stance on water charges 'return to
days of populism'
Fine Gael TD for Dublin South West Colm Brophy
said Fianna Fil's stance on water is a return to the
days of populism.
He said the water committee was working very well
until yesterday when Fianna Fil decided to
implement a radical change of course.
Mr Brophy said Fianna Fil was initially in favour of
charging for excessive use of water and he cannot
understand why the party is opposed to water meters
which was a simple and effective way of measuring
water usage.
He said Ireland could be forced to pay tens of millions
of euro in fines if it is found to be in breach of an EU
directive on water.
Meanwhile, Fine Gael TD for Dn Laoghaire Sen
Barrett has said failure to bring back water charges
means there will not be a reduction in the high-level
of direct taxes in Ireland.
Speaking on RT's Today with Sean O'Rourke, the
former ceann comhairle said the only way to reduce
pressure on PAYE workers would be to introduce
indirect taxes, such as water charges.
Mr Barrett said he was in favour of the PAYE earner
getting relief and he believed everyone should pay for
services like water and electricity.
He said that if water charges were not re-introduced,
then those who have already paid should be repaid,
adding that you either abide by the law of the land or
you do not.
He declined to comment on who he would back as
the next leader of Fine Gael and said it was wrong to
be seen to be forcing Taoiseach Enda Kenny out of
office when he has given such good service to the
party and the country.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0301/856261-oireachtas-water/
Water protesters false revolutionaries says Alan
Kelly
Radical water protesters are false revolutionaries promising a free
utopian society that doesn't exist, Minister for the Environment Alan
Kelly has said.
RTE.IE
Minister for the Environment Alan Kelly said radical #IrishWater
protesters are false revolutionaries promising a free Utopian society
that doesn't exist
February 28, 17
By Rita Cahill
Labours fight for a second term in Government will
be tough and will take courage, the partys leader
Joan Burton has told delegates at the party's national
conference in Killarney.
Now, the fight for a second term will take all our
energy, skill and courage. Its going to be tough. But
its a fight we embark on with utmost conviction, the
Labour leader told the conference.
The Tnaiste said Labour politicians must take the
conviction they hold in the core value of the party to
the doorsteps.
The Labour leader added, the partys task is not to
win a second term alone but to have sufficient
strength to make its presence felt - just as it has done
in Government.
Welcoming delegates to Killarney, she said the
Labour Party has risen to the challenge of rescuing
the country in a dark and difficult hour.
She said the shadow of crisis has passed and that
Labour was central to this turnaround with more jobs
being created, increasing wages, and renewed
prosperity.
She outlined her objectives as leader as building a
social recovery and delivering opportunity for all, and
highlighted what the party has achieved in
Government, including bidding the troika goodbye
and exiting the bailout.
We shut down Anglo and tore up the toxic
promissory note - which was toxic, she said.
Thanks to superb work by Eamon Gilmore and
Brendan Howlin, we renegotiated our debt burden to
save tens of billions of euro. These successes were
the gateway to progress on so many other fronts,
economic and social, she added.
Highlighting the Budget she said the process of
raising living standards has begun.
Ms. Burton also said building the economic recovery
is one of the things she is proudest.
She said the work on social recovery has only just
begun and that the party would use every last
remaining day of this Government to increase
prosperity and reduce poverty.
Well fight tooth and nail to return to Government to
keep doing the same, and more again,
A motion calling for a referendum repealing the Eigth

Amendment has been passed at the conference.
The motion suggested that it be included in the
Labour manifesto for the next general election.
Those who spoke on the motion included Senator
Ivana Bacik, Emmett Stagg, Aodhn Rordin and
the Minister of State Kathleen Lynch who
commended the motion.
There was a round of applause when the vote was
carried.
Earlier, Taoiseach Enda Kenny said repealing the

Eight is not a priority for Fine Gael.
Speaking in Castlebar, Mr Kenny said the issue of
abortion was not a matter he wanted to see kicked
around like a political football.
He said the Labour Party was perfectly entitled to
consider issues that members felt were important.
He said it was his view that any constitutional change
in this regard needed to be considered very carefully,
as the issue of abortion was a matter of the most
sensitive, personal and serious consequence.
The Taoiseach said Fine Gael would look at these
matters in time.
A number of motions relating to social
protection, including a complete overhaul of the social
welfare system in relation to self-employed people
and a reinstatement of the full adult rate of
jobseekers' allowance for all claimants over the age
of 18 and below the age of 26, have been passed.
Delegates also voted for a motion suggesting that the
Christmas Bonus for pensioners be increased to
100% in the next budget.
A motion calling for the abolition of the License fee
has been withdrawn at the Labour party conference
following a request from Minister for Communications
Alex White.
The motion put down by the Newport/Ballina Branch
in Tipperary suggested that RT get funding through
advertising and "other means".
However, Mr White said while he understood and
respected he motion, he said if there was a proper
public broadcast charge, "it could be less than 160".
He appealed for the motion to be withdrawn, and he
said he'd consider the view of the branch.
Earlier, Minister for the Environment Alan Kelly said
radical water protesters are false revolutionaries
promising a free Utopian society that doesn't exist.
Speaking ahead of the convention, Mr Kelly said
there are many genuine protesters, but "there is also
a small amount of people who want some form of
Utopian society where you can get everything for
nothing, and that society doesn't exist.
"These people are false revolutionaries who believe
in leading people up to the top of the hill and then
they'll blatantly abandon them, like they have done on
many issues before, and leave people with bills or
leave people in vulnerable situations potentially - who
knows.
"False promises where you can create a Utopian
society where everything is free and everything is for
nothing simply doesn't exist.
"We all have to make our contribution to society and
that goes for everybody in whatever way they can.
Some people unfortunately find themselves in
situations where they can't, but outside of that
everyone, I think, has a role in society and has to
take part in some capacity in that society.
"Unfortunately there is a small, small band of people
who believe that they don't have to be part of that,
they don't have to make a contribution, and certainly
they are not the type of people I want to represent
and they are certainly not the type of people I feel the
Labour party is here to represent," said Mr Kelly.
FG-Labour voting pact likely ahead of election
Meanwhile, Mr Kelly said a voting pact between Fine
Gael and Labour is likely in the run-up to the next
election.
He said a voting pact between the Government
parties was a natural inclination, but that
discussions would have to happen at some stage.
"From electoral terms there is a natural inclination
from Labour and Fine Gael supporters to transfer to
one another, given the fact that we have come
through so much as a Government," Mr Kelly said.
He added discussions could happen at some stage
on a voting pact or a transfer pact, but he stressed
Labour would contest the election as an independent
party.
Mr Kelly also emphasised it was very early for any
general election speculation, because it is over a year
away.
"14 months is an eternity in politics ... The people will
have a choice. They will have a choice in 14 months
between stability and chaos and I am urging them to
chose stability and return this Government," Mr Kelly
said.
THE CAPITULATION OF RIGHT2WATER?
It is now clear that the Wicklow Town Right2Water campaign has
been hijacked by a small number of political opportunists who also
happen to be members of Sinn Fein and the Socialist Workers Party
(also known as the
THE CAPITULATION OF RIGHT2WATER?
It is now clear that the Wicklow Town Right2Water campaign has
been hijacked by a small number of political opportunists who also
happen to be members of Sinn Fein and the Socialist Workers Party
(also known as the People Before Profit Alliance).
Immediately below this post is another post giving a disturbing
account of happenings in County Wicklow. Elsewhere you can find
similar accounts from County Kerry involving similar betrayals from
members of the same two political parties.
I know there are decent people of good character in both these two
organisations who must deplore this shameless betrayal of the
emerging democratic movement in communities all over the
country.
I am sure that most honourable people will be appalled at and
absolutely opposed to the blatant police state tactics deployed by
the Kenny/Burton junta. These are reminiscent of earlier Greek
events which facilitated the murderous Colonels Regime which
imposed a fascist police state on that unfortunate country from
1967 to 1974.
It is clear the TROIKA want to try out how far they can undermine
democracy in Ireland as people all over Europe begin to oppose
their ubiquitous Austerity Programme
THE POLITICS OF MANIPULATION Vs THE POLITICS OF DEMOCRACY?
Democracy is a precious thing, and the way in which manipulative
dishonesty has been used by an undemocratic minority to expel
two founding members from the Right2Water umbrella group,
displays a total contempt for democratic practice, and indeed, a
rejection of the human rights of these two people and also
implicitly, for the democratic human rights of every member of the
Wicklow Town Community. This wanton discrimination and bullying is
an affront to democracy!
It has been ruthlessly carried out by a small clique, which has
secretly done a deal Irish Water and the coercive policing agencies
of the 26-county Dail state, its billionaire business friends, acting
totally against the interests of the people.
LEADERSHIP?
I expect the national leadership of both these two organisations to
clarify, without delay, whether they support the opportunist views
and treacherous betrayals and collaboration exemplified by Cllr John
Snell and Anna Doyle in Wicklow Town, and whether they will do the
honest thing and hold firm on a principled opposition to the
commodification project of the TOIKA, now being carried out by the
quisling Kenny/Burton political gang.
If Cllr John Snell and Anna Doyle want to dedicate their political work
to preserving and protecting the status quo to protecting the
business interests of the billionaire capitalist businessman Denis
OBrien and the rest of his 1% class, then they have a right to do
just that. And we all have to respect that this is their right! But they
should be honest about their aims and not tell lies to the people.
And we have a right to expect John, Anna Doyle, Right2Water and
those associated with it to tell the truth. To tell us the whole truth.
And we also have a right to make a judgment of them based on
their behaviour!
I say to these two individuals now: your political credibility and
reputations, and also the question of your basic political integrity
and honesty are at stake after your actions in this issue. Your
behaviour is accountable. You have placed yourselves in the dock
before the people with your dishonourable manipulation. You also
owe apologies to all those you have lied to and misled. The trust
and political development of good people entering the struggle to
defend their basic rights has been abused through your character
assassinations of those whose principled political outlook you
oppose and whom you have victimised. You are both a disgrace to
the very concept of socialism.
POLITICAL CORUPTION?
We have seen the nods and winks of cute-hoorism from both Fianna
Fail and Fine Gael on countless occasions. But it is chilling to
experience such a betrayal from people with whom, a few days ago,
I stood shoulder to shoulder with on barricades successfully
defeating the violent onslaught of Irish Water bullies and the state
coercive force the Garda.
It is a very simple and direct question I ask these two political
organisations: Can I ever again trust your words or your actions?
I say to them: You cannot sit on the fence on this matter. Your own
many decent members, as much as the general public in
communities struggling against this thieving capitalist state,
deserve to know if these examples of treachery and deception will
be tolerated by your political party leaderships, or whether they will
faced up to with integrity and dealt with effectively and fully. Can I
trust you? Yes or No? It is that simple!
But it is more than just a question of political honesty. It is a
question of basic democracy and whether you uphold democracy or
not as a principle.
BASIC HONESTY AND TRUST
At this particular moment in the history of the struggle against
Water Charges, it is also most important for us all to find out
whether Sinn Fein and The Socialist Workers Party can be trusted to
behave democratically in the future or whether they cannot!
And whether these party leaderships consider secret deals with the
Garda, and other elements of this state, and also corporate
gangsters like Irish Water or ok or not.
The question of political trust now sits directly in front of these two
political organisations.
And I personally, as well as the thousands of people now becoming
politicised all across this country, are entitled to know if their word
and their actions can ever be relied on again.
Open Democracy Now Please! Answer these questions.
fh 13/02/2015
Referred to story
https://www.facebook.com/brendan.doyle.222/posts/102035365919
49282
Urgent Need for Clarification from John Snell Regarding his
Engagement with Irish Water:
We the undersigned have been active for many months in the
Wicklow campaign against the imposition of unjust water charges.
We believe that a multi-fronted campaign is required to defeat the
water charges. Tactics to be used in this campaign include peaceful
public protest, non-registration with Irish Water, non-payment of
bills issued by Irish Water, acts of peaceful civil disobedience and
the peaceful disruption of water meter installations.
In relation to the disruption of water meter installations we believe
such actions to be acts of patriotism, preventing the waste of
hundreds of millions of euros of public money on the installation of
water meters that will become redundant when the water charges
have been defeated. We further oppose the installation of water
meters as we understand that the installation of such meters is a
critical component in the commodification and ultimate privatisation
of water services and water resources
.
In recent weeks the communities of Wicklow Town and the
surrounding areas have found themselves on the frontline in the
battle against the installation of water meters. To their credit the
people have stood up to be counted and mobilised in large numbers
and with great determination. For weeks on end residents have
maintained vigils awaiting the arrival of Irish Water contractors and
when those contractors have arrived the residents have peacefully
and doggedly resisted the installation of water meters.
We have been inspired by the sense of community spirit that has
emerged during the campaign to prevent the installation of water
meters, a spirit that has crossed class barriers and seen neighbours
become friends. Through their own efforts the people successfully
faced down Irish Water and the bullying behaviour of the Garda,
culminating in eight arrests and a mass protest outside the Garda
station in Wicklow Town. The people had de facto won the water
meter battle in Wicklow Town and the surrounding areas.
It is against this backdrop that we are publicly calling on Councillor
John Snell of Sinn Fin to clarify what role he played in facilitating
the installation of water meters in Rathnew earlier this week. Did
John Snell engage in discussions with Irish Water contractors, either
directly or indirectly, and if so on whose authority was he acting?
Did John Snell encourage residents to step aside and allow Irish
Water to install water meters in Rathnew? Or did John Snell
immediately contact other campaign activists when it became
apparent that Irish Water were attempting to install meters in
Rathnew, as had been the custom and practice in recent weeks? Did
John Snell shuttle between residents and a convoy of Irish Water
vehicles before giving the contractors the all-clear to enter the
estate and actually travel in convoy with those vehicles in his own
vehicle?
As activists who are centrally involved in the Wicklow campaign to
defeat water charges we can state without fear of contradiction that
no democratic decision has been taken within the campaign to
engage with Irish Water contractors or for activists from the
campaign to act as intermediaries between residents and Irish
Water contractors to allow the installation of meters. Our campaign
is committed to the maximum disruption of the water metering
programme, not to facilitating the installation of a single meter in
the county.
We have reluctantly taken the route of publicly calling for John Snell
to clarify his position in the belief that there has already been
enough of politicians secret deals and of cabals in back kitchens
attempting to undermine the democratic control of the campaign in
Wicklow. The greatest strength of our campaign is openness,
transparency and democracy. We either stand in total opposition to
water meters and the water tax, or we dont.
Signed:
Sean Doyle,
Thomas O Cleirigh,
Roy Howard,
Martin Benson.
SLAN ABHAILE?
OH THE ARROGANCE!And just remember, if you do decide
to avail of these schemes... Get a reciept for any money
hand over, not to mention, a copy of their indemnity
insurance. Please start holding people ACCOUNTABLE for
the MONEY they are charging!!!!!!!And always ask the
question FIRST..... Will I be able to stay in my home!!!!
"Some borrowers are living in fear while others are living
in DENIAL, said Mr Varadkar.
Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald claimed the number of
mortgage restructurings has increased while the level of
repossessions had fallen slightly, and stated:
I would urge anyone worried about mortgage arrears on
their home to contact Mabs who are the GOVERNMENT
gateway to the range of supports available.
The Abhaile scheme is designed to help borrowers who are
insolvent and at risk of losing their homes. Users can
access three different panels of experts, including
personal insolvency practitioners, solicitors, and
accountants".
Ahem...Is this the same GOVERNMENT who forced you to
BAIL OUT THE BANKS?
Simon Coveney Says

He Won't Introduce
Scheme Which
Doesn't Charge For
Wasting Water
Feb 28th
On FM Radio Today
It could lead to major
problems with Fianna
Fil
The minister responsible for water
charges says he won't introduce ANY
scheme which doesn't charge people
for wasteful usage.
Simon Coveney's position puts the
government on a major collision
course with Fianna Fil.
The two parties had agreed to
implement the findings of an
Oireachtas committee, which
appears... set to call for no domestic
charges at all.
But Simon Coveney says THAT
regime would be illegal under EU law
and there's no way he can
implement it:
https://www.todayfm.com/News/Simon-Coveney-Says-He-Wont-
Introduce-Scheme-Which-Doesnt-Charge-For-Wasting-Water
Latest Water charges 'finished' as

committee moves closer to
recommending water bill refunds
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Update 2.20pm: Water charges are "finished" and
hundreds of millions of euro has been "wasted" on a failed
billing system, a Sinn Fin TD has claimed.
In dramatic developments, Oireachtas committee water

charges member Eoin O'Broin has claimed that the group
have agreed effectively to refund water bills, writes Juno
McEnroe of the Irish Examiner.
The move means that the Dil will be recommended to

vote that almost one million homes get their water bills
refunded.
Mr O'Broin said this meant that water charges were

"finished". He also said a majority of members on the
committee also wanted to put an end to the metering
programme.
While the committee has yet to make a formal statement

today or finish its report by March 13 on the future of
charges, a decision to recommend the refund of bills will
raise questions about the years of work, funds and the
billing system which caused political chaos and saw mass
protests against the country
Mr O'Broin's comments were echoed earlier by AAA-PBP

TD Paul Murphy who said that the committee were on the
brink of recommending that bills be refunded.
The committee has yet to decide how charges will be

refunded.
"This is a victory for Irish people," declared deputy

O'Broin.
Update 11.19am: Labour TD Joan Burton has said that a

group of TDs working on the funding of water services
may not be the ones to decide whether any cash refunds
are handed out, or another method of compensation is
used.
People who in good faith paid their water charges and

complied with the law I think that that has to be
recognised, she said.
The question then of how that might be refunded my

guess is though that the committee will probably pass on
the detail of that and will ask somebody like the
Commissioner for Energy Regulation.
Update 10.25am: Sinn Fin spokesperson on water, Eoin

Broin TD, has said that it is crunch time for the
committee.
Speaking ahead of the meeting of the Oireachtas

Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water
Services this afternoon, Deputy Broin said: The key
issue for the Committee always has been whether the
parties will vote to abolish domestic water charges.
Sinn Fin has been unequivocal on our position to
completely abolish domestic water charges.
The idea of an excess charge is a Trojan horse and is

being used by Fianna Fil to get them off the hook in
relation to their election promise to abolish water charges.
The reality is that according to Irish Waters own data
household water consumption in this state is one of the
lowest in the OECD. Irish citizens use an average of 123
litres per capita, compared to England where people use
on average 140 litres.
The excess charge itself could cost more to administer

than what it would bring it in revenue. This would be
another waste of taxpayers money.
The introduction of an excess charge would also require
the continuation of expensive universal metering.
Earlier:
It is being reported that a Dil group is supporting a
proposal to refund people who paid water bills.
A report from the committee of TDs examining how to

fund water services is currently being finalised.
According to the Irish Times, the group agrees people

should be paid back - however it is not known whether it
should be in the form of a cash payment, tax credit or
some other system.
The Junior Minister behind a new Commission into an

abusive foster home in Waterford thinks Michael Noonan
has no case to answer.
Mr Noonan was Minister for Health during a time when a

decision to remove a disabled woman from the home was
overturned.
This afternoon Junior Minister Finian McGrath says he is

going ahead with plans for a Commission of Investigation,
despite calls from groups like Inclusion Ireland to abandon
it.
Minister McGrath says the role of Mr Noonan will be
examined, but he believes there is no case to answer.
He said: "I met Michael Noonan last with with officials from
the Department of Health and we gave him an update on
the correspondence that was there.
"We are satisfied that will bea dealt with within the
commission but my gut reaction is that I don't think there
is anything to answer."
Inclusion Ireland is claiming that people with intellectual

disabilities are abused every day in institutions around the
State.
The group says successive reports have highlighted the

poor conditions experienced by the 3,000 people who live
in institutional care around the country.
The Taoiseach Enda Kenny and the HSE today apologised

to a woman known as Grace after two reports detailed
how she was left in an abusive foster home for 20 years.
The Government is to set up a Commission of

Investigation into the issue, but the CEO of Inclusion
Ireland Paddy Connolly says he would rather see the
money spent on proper facilities.
Mr Connolly said: "The abuse of not getting out for many

hours in a day, spending 14 or 15 hours sitting in a chair,
so we know without any doubt that people are being
abused today in these settings.
"There is not sufficient energy from Government, the HSE,

the Department of Health to move these people out of
these inappropriate institutions."
Gerry Adams has said he hopes unionist voters will not
buy concerted attempts by the Democratic Unionists to
demonise him in the Assembly election campaign.
The Sinn Fein president said the DUPs repeated warnings
about him, in an election in which he is not even standing
as a candidate, was "very typical operation fear tactics".
Mr Adams, a TD for Co Louth in the Irish Dail, claimed the
intense focus on him was the DUPs effort to deflect public
attention from the partys handling of a botched green
energy scheme that has left Stormont facing a potential
490 million overspend.
"I would like to think that unionists out there, people
whose money went down the drain without any
satisfactory explanation so far, will not be swept along by
an attempt to make this an orange and green issue," he
said
On Monday, DUP leader Arlene Foster told the Press
Association she made "no apologies" for concentrating on
Sinn Fein and Mr Adams influence on the party north of
the border.
She claimed Northern Irelands constitutional future would

be thrown up in the air if his party topped the polls in
Thursdays snap election.
Mrs Foster said such a result would see the UK
Government come under renewed republican pressure to
hold a referendum on a united Ireland.
"I am not going to apologise for the fact theres a huge
threat to Northern Ireland," she said.
"People have talked about scare tactics and talked about
fear, the reality (of a Sinn Fein victory) would be much
worse for Northern Ireland than just talking about it.
"People should be concerned, they should be worried."
Mr Adams was on the Falls Road in Belfast on Tuesday with
Sinn Feins Stormont leader Michelle ONeill delivering a
pre-election message to voters.
Mrs ONeill also rejected the DUP campaign tactics.
"This election is not about orange and green issues, its
not about the politics of fear, its about the future and we
fought the campaign on that basis," she said.
If the DUP and Sinn Fein are returned as Northern Irelands
largest political parties they will have three weeks to
resolve their multiple differences and agree to form a new
coalition executive.
Given Sinn Fein has ruled out entering any government
involving Mrs Foster before an as-yet uncommenced public
inquiry into the error-ridden renewable heat incentive
(RHI) scheme reports, the likelihood of a new
administration being formed post-election is slim.
If the three-week deadline passes without agreement,
Northern Ireland Secretary James Brokenshire would be
legally obliged to call another snap election.
However, In such circumstances, the Government may
consider emergency legislation to suspend devolution and
restore direct rule, a move that could pave the way for a
longer negotiation process.
On Tuesday, Mrs ONeill reiterated her stance that Mr
Brokenshire could not chair any post-election talks.
"James Brokenshire is not in our opinion and never can be
an honest broker," she said.
Garda are investigating allegations of a child being
offered for sale in Limerick.
A spokesperson for the Garda Press Office confirmed

Garda have begun an investigation into the claims.
"Garda at Roxboro Road are presently conducting
enquiries into the circumstances of the reporting of the
incident and possible child welfare issues," the
spokesperson added.
The incident allegedly occurred on February 15 last

outside a commercial premises on the south side of
Limerick city.
Garda were alerted by concerned members of the public

who claimed a woman had been trying to sell or give away
the child.
The toddler at the centre of the allegation is male.
The alleged incident is said to have occurred outside the

premises around 5.10pm on the day in question.
It is understood Garda know the identity of the woman

and child involved.
Investigations are continuing.

When asked if it was aware of the alleged incident, Tusla
the Child and Famy Agency said: Tusla Child and Family
Agency does not comment on individual cases."
"This is to protect the privacy and wellbeing of the

children and families with whom we work."
"Tusla screens and assesses all child protection concerns

received in line with Children First: National Guidance for
the Protection and Welfare of Children'.
Committee expected to
recommend 100m water
charges refunds to those
who have paid up
Niall O'Connor
February 28 2017
1
There is growing unease within Government that failure to strike an
agreement on the issue could precipitate a general election
An Oireachtas committee set up to examine
the future of water charges is expected to
recommend the issuing of refunds to
households that have paid their bills to date.
Committee sources last night said there was now a
growing consensus that refunds should be issued in lieu of
the option of pursuing those who had boycotted the
charges.
Members are also leaning towards the introduction of an
excessive usage charge, which will be levelled on
households found to be wasting water.
The measure is a key recommendation in the report
produced by the expert commission on water charges.
Special provisions for those on group water schemes will
also form part of the package voted on in the Dil, sources
say.
But TDs and senators remain split on key issues, including
whether the metering programme should be continued.
With the Dil due to debate the issue of water charges next
month, the work of the committee has now entered its
most critical phase.
There is growing unease within Government that failure to
strike an agreement on the issue could precipitate a
general election.
While no measures have been agreed, various sources say
they believe the issue of refunds has emerged as one of the
least contentious issues.
The committee has now sought an option paper in relation
to how best to reimburse the one million households that
have paid their bills.
It's estimated that refunds will cost the State in the region
of 100m.
Given the Dil arithmetic, the overall fate of water charges
will depend on whether Fine Gael and Fianna Fil can
reach a "compromise", according to senior sources in both
parties.
Fine Gael remains in favour of a "modest charge" for
households and has said the recommendation by the
expert commission that the State becomes the main
customer of Irish Water, rather than the household, is
doable.
But Fianna Fil is coming under pressure to soften its
position, which has changed on several occasions already.
In its submission to the expert commission, the party
proposes the abolition of charges and the funding of the
water system through general taxation.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/committee-expected-to-
recommend-100m-water-charges-refunds-to-those-who-have-paid-up-
35488713.html
Where is the referendum to protect ownership of the Irish water supply
for the people of Ireland?
I've been funding the State for 40 years, and I do not want my
investment in public utilities and services handed over to private
opportunists. The Irish Water Quango has already well gouged the
State.
Anyone who paid up willingly should refuse a rebate. The many who
were intimidated into paying should accept a rebate.
Not without losing hugely at the polls. Their promise to abolish water
charges swung things in their favour in 2016. Maintaining that line now
is a vote catcher, in the same way that doing the opposite will lose
support massively. FF stole the clothes of AAA/PBP and others because,
while the Lefties did all the protesting, voters saw that FF was the party
which could actually bring change about and they did at least, get the
charges suspended. The Soldiers as we know, are motivated mainly by
power so I can't see how a policy of charging for water and selling IW
would bring that about. By contrast, Fine Gael is very much in favour of
privatisation in many areas, not simply water.
But of course, we'll all continue to pay for water indirectly, in one way or
another.
What a disgrace Fianna Fil are. Committing economic sabotage against
their own people for short term political gain.
Committee on water charges

unlikely to recommend any
charging regime
Right2Water holding meeting on Wednesday to decide
next course of action
about 3 hours ago Updated: about 2 hours ago
Sarah Bardon
A demonstrator during a march and rally organized by Right2Change and

Right2Water in Dublin last year. Photograph: Caroline Quinn/AFP/Getty
Images
The Dil committee examining the future of water

service funding in the State is understood to be unlikely
to recommend any form of charging regime.
It is also believed the majority of members are opposed
to introducing a charge for excessive usage.
The group of 20 TDs is meeting on Tuesday and
Wednesday to agree the contents of its final report,
which is to be sent to the Dil in time for a vote on its
findings on March 13th.
It is understood that consensus has been reached on a
number of issues including returning money to those
who paid their bills.
The method has not been decided, with members to
examine whether Irish Water should give a cash
payment, if Revenue should offer a tax credit, or whether
an opt-in, opt-out system should be developed.
There has also been agreement in principle not to pursue
those who did not pay their bills due to the costs
attached.
It is understood that committee chairman Pdraig
Cidigh, an Independent Senator, held a private session
with the committee last week where consensus was
reached on some issues.
The Right2Water campaign, which led opposition to the
water charges, will hold a meeting on Wednesday to
decide its next course of action.
Anti-Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy and Sinn Fin
TD Eoin Broin both told The Irish Times they would
not sign up to a report that provided for charges for
excessive usage.
Mr Murphy said a decision would be taken this week on
whether national demonstrations should coincide with a
Dil vote.
Water charges have been suspended until April 1st,
meaning the levies will return unless action is taken by
that date.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/committee-on-water-
charges-unlikely-to-recommend-any-charging-regime-
1.2992323#.WLWMosQXU2c.facebook
THIS IS OUR IRELAND' HOME SWEET HOME READING AT AXIS

THEATRE
Dec 18, 2016
Ever the alchemist Dean Scurry got Damien Dempsey, John Connors
Maverick Sabre and me to work with a group of remarkable young
men at The Axis Theatre in Ballymun. That led to months of ongoing
conversations about the nature of our nation and the political
paralysis of our people. Larger meetings with leaders of the arts
were sometimes wonderful but often just exercises in frustration.
Invariably it would end up with me, Dean, John and Damo being
perceived as too extreme in our insistence that whatever was to be
done, it had to be on a grand scale. It would have to be something
beneficial to our most vulnerable. But it would also have to be
something that might awaken our national dormant spirit. It was an
absurd ambition. A fantasy. An impossibility.
Months later, the call came through. "It's happening." That's all
Dean said. "And we need you to write the words." This remarkable
man had been working relentlessly with the equally remarkable
Brendan Ogle and they had set in motion a philosophical,
humanistic and, most importantly, pragmatic plan to protect our
most vulnerable and inspire our collective spirit. I went to a bar and
tried to write. Nothing came out. I called Dean and asked who am I
writing for? Who do you want, is what he said? I wanted the most
famous working class Dublin artist there has ever been, Jim
Sheridan. Dean said, I'm on it.
I ordered another drink but the words wouldn't come. All the
standard bullshit that goes with fear and doubt and ego and vanity
and hubris and judgement was kicking in but then the simple
realisation hit. This is not about fear. This is about strength. Just tell
the truth. The words came. Called Dean. Quietly read them over the
phone as the full bar was singing Christmas songs. He listened then
whispered, "Shivers, brother, shivers."
Next day it was happening. We met at the Unite Office. A stunning

group of people. Hours of discussions and decisions. Then the words
came up. Curtis 'Fifty Cent' Jackson has been shot twice but he said
the only man he's ever been sacred of is Jim Sheridan. That's how
tough Sheridan is. He is also a beautiful, courageous humanist and a
hero to many. Including me. Some folk fought for the words, others
didn't. The final decision was to keep it much simpler. When
Sheridan opens his mouth people listen anyway. He doesn't need a
hack. The words were in the bin but the magic was happening. We
walked to the GPO and Jim and Damo and Glen Hansard captured
the mood better than any hack. That night the NAMA building was
taken and something magical was born.
Then last night I get another call from Dean. There's a comedy gig in
the Axis Theatre, where we started this conversation all that time
ago, and Dean wants me to read the words to the audience. A
comedy audience? Only he could think it was a good idea. Only he
could make me put the fear aside and do it. Only he could know it
would inspire a standing ovation. This is our Ireland.
Every single person alive has to watch this video
It's NOT "Irish Water
It's ""IRELAND'S Water"
OIREACHTAS COMMITTEE ON
WATER MUST RECOMMEND
ABOLITION OF WATER CHARGES
28 February, 2017
Oireachtas Committee on Water must recommend abolition of water
charges
A letter sent to all TD's and Senators today by Right2Water:

Dear Deputy/Senator,
As you are no doubt aware, water charges have been the biggest
political issue over the last number of years. Indeed two thirds of
those elected to Dail Eireann last year were returned with a
democratic mandate to abolish water charges. This is backed up
by the Irish Times MRBI Poll which shows that 62% of Irish people
want water charges scrapped while only 34% said they wished to
keep them.
Last week the Right2Water campaign was invited to attend the
Oireachtas Committee on water to put forward our campaigns
position. Some TDs and media outlets have selectively interpreted
our responses to questions from members of the committee and
previous media interviews.
Insofar as Right2Water have ever been interpreted as commenting
on an excess use charge, this should only be considered in the
form of a swimming pool tax to assuage the oft cited media and
political concerns in this respect. In fact, the questions asked at the
Oireachtas hearing and on RTEs Sean ORourke Show both
referenced swimming pools as the example of excessive usage.
Let us be unequivocal here. Right2Water does not believe metered
domestic water charges should be implemented for a number of
reasons:
9 There is no evidence that Irish people are profligate with their
water. As the expert commission stated in their report, The expert
commission has not seen any evidence that Ireland has
particularly high levels of domestic water usage and Irish people
are at the lower end of the spectrum when it comes to comparing
water usage among other European countries. In fact, Irish people
use between 15-25% less water than UK households, again as
cited by the expert commission, as well as 35% less water usage
than people in Germany.
9 Ireland has the among the highest rates of water availability in the
world, with water availability four times higher than France and fifty
time higher than Israel, for instance.
9 The imposition of domestic water charges for excessive usage
would be the thin end of the wedge. No doubt, like other nominal
charges (for example bins charges), these charges will increase
over time and any potential allowances would also be eroded over
time.
9 Implementing domestic water charges would double the cost of
water infrastructure in the medium term from 350 per annum per
domestic unit to 700 per annum per domestic unit. This is due to
the costs of metering including installation, maintenance,
administration and replacement. There are further costs including
advertising (3 million per year), postage (6 million per year) and
consultants (90 million to date).
9 Any metered watered system would be a stepping stone towards
privatisation irrespective of the governments declarations or
position. For instance, the Troika has forced privatisation of water
in countries where there is economic turbulence.
9 There is little evidence to show that water meters increase
conservation. Again, in the expert commissions report they state
that conservation only occurs where there are education and
awareness campaigns.
For these reasons and more, Right2Water is opposed to any
metered domestic charges. Even if members of the Dail are to
consider imposing a charge for the non-existent excessive use at
the levels indicated in the expert commissions report (90% of
users or 150% of average domestic consumption), this would only
yield between 14m and 27m. To spend almost 300 million of
taxpayers money every year pursuing this relatively small amount
would be economically irresponsible and idiotic.
Arguments by some in favour of metering because it helps identify
leaks are disingenuous. More than 41% of all water is leaked
before it gets to taps. 97% of that leakage does not come on the
household side and district metering would be a far more efficient
investment in terms of identifying leaks and addressing the
inadequacies in the system.
In terms of funding our water services, it is the position of
Right2Water that this should come from general taxation. Also, as
referenced by the expert commission, the 50% of commercial
water charges that are not collected on an annual basis should be
pursued and the lack of abstraction charges where companies
like Britvic (Ballygowan) and others can extract our natural spring
water in limitless supplies and do not pay anything needs to be
addressed.
We have attached our full submission to the expert commission
for your perusal should you need any further clarity on any of the
above.
In conclusion, Right2Water has forced a national discussion about
water charges despite successive governments attempts to
steamroll the regressive policy through the Oireachtas. All of the
evidence presented by Right2Water for three years now has been
proven correct by the expert commission. While our campaign and
our policy position was largely ignored by governments and media
outlets, the public were listening to us resulting in some of the
largest demonstration in Irish history and the electoral outcome
last year. Any attempts to implement any form of domestic water
charges should be seen as an attack on the democratic outcome
of the last election. In this context, we are demanding that all
members of Dail Eireann who stood on a platform of abolition of
water charges in General Election 2016 follow through with their
mandate and end water charges once and for all.
We are also calling on all members of the Oireachtas to swiftly
pass legislation allowing a referendum on ownership of our water
to progress as soon as possible so that the Irish public do not have
to put up with another thinly veiled water privatisation fiasco in the
future.
Yours sincerely,
Right2Water Coordinators
David Gibney
Brendan Ogle
http://www.right2water.ie/blog/oireachtas-committee-water-must-
recommend-abolition-water-charges
RIGHT2WATER CAMPAIGNS TELLS
WATER COMMITTEE CHARGES
FOR EXCESSIVE WATER USE
WOULD BE A WASTE OF
TAXPAYERS' MONEY
21 February, 2017
The Right2Water campaign attended the Oireachtas committee

today where the group said applying a charge for excessive water
usage would be a waste of taxpayers money.
David Gibney, spokesperson for Right2Water said if the committee
were to pursue households for excessive water usage it would cost
almost 300 million but the maximum return would be 30 million if
you apply the criteria recommended by the Expert Commission on
Domestic Public Water Services.
Mr Gibney pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence to
suggest that Irish people are profligate with their water. In fact, he
pointed out to the committee that Ireland has among the highest
amount of available water in the EU and uses less water than
almost any other country in the developed world.
We have 50 times more water available to us than Israel, and yet
we use 25 percent less water than the UK where theyve had
water charges in place since 1989, said Mr Gibney.
He added that there was already provision for dealing with
excessive water usage through the Water Services Act 2007.
Steve Fitzpatrick, who also answered questions at the committee
on behalf of Right2Water highlighted the fact that certain politicians
and the government are determined to penalise domestic citizens
while ignoring the problem of corporations using excessive
amounts of water.
After the Committee hearing, Mr Fitzpatrick said, Its clear some
parties want to ignore the democratic will of the public where two
thirds of the population want water charges scrapped. They are
using a false argument about excessive domestic usage to
vindicate pushing through their water privatisation agenda without
any democratic mandate.
He added, If politicians are serious about implementing the
polluter pays principle, it is our view that the huge industrial
wastage of water through distilleries, the pollution of rivers by
mega farmers, the free water obtained from our springs by
multinational companies like Britvic, and the almost half of all
companies who are currently refusing to pay commercial water
charges should be addressed.
Mr Gibney concluded, Right2Water does not believe that a charge
for excessive water usage on domestic households makes sense.
The real waste is in the 41 percent of water that is leaked before it
gets to your tap of which only 3 percent is on the household side.
Yet, instead of investing in upgrading the infrastructure and fixing
the leaks, some political parties are persistent in pursuing a
fictional line about Irish families wasting water despite their own
expert commission saying, The expert commission has not seen
any evidence that Ireland has particularly high levels of domestic
water usage, and indeed, Irish people are at the lower end of the
spectrum when it comes to comparing water usage to other
European countries.
The Right2Water campaign is calling on the two thirds of TDs
elected to the Dail on a mandate for scrapping water charges to
quit playing games, stand by their electoral promises and end
water charges before they waste any more taxpayers money.
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
ARE ALREADY PRIVATISING OUR
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM
14 December, 2016
Dr Rory Hearne, Researcher & Author of Public Private

Partnerships in Ireland: failed experiment or the way forward?
(2011)
Fears about the privatisation of public water provision was a
central motivating factor behind the Right2Water protest movement
but concerns about the privatisation of water are held by many
other political and civil society groupings. The recently published
Expert Commission on Water Services Report highlighted a
widespread public concern about the potential privatisation of Irish
Water. They stated that public responses to their consultation
expressed concerns that water charges, and metering of domestic
households, could eventually lead to privatisation. The Report
notes that this was sometimes set in the context of wider
concerns about privatisation of public services, and the
commodification of water. However, it is widely known that various
public and private interests have been preparing the ground for the
potential privatisation of the Irish public water system. In this article
I provide evidence that should concern all those worried about the
potential privatisation of Irish public water. This centres on the on-
going implementation of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in the
provision of public water infrastructure in Ireland. These PPPs are
a form of creeping privatisation that makes the full privatisation of
our public water system a real possibility in the future.
This creeping privatisation or outsourcing of key parts of the
public water infrastructure system has been going on for almost
twenty years through PPP projects. These PPPs involve private
companies providing, operating and managing water and waste-
water treatment plants for some of our largest cities and towns.
Worryingly most of these private companies are global
corporations leading the way in water privatisation internationally.
They now control water and waste-water treatment infrastructure
such as the Dublin Ringsend Waste Water Treatment Plant,
(treating waste water from over 1.7 million people), the
Bray/Shanganagh plant (serving a population of 248,000), Sligo
(serving 80,000), Waterford (180,000), and plants in Cork,
Tipperary, Offaly, Meath, and Donegal, amongst others.
According to Dail records there are, in fact, 115 of these PPP
contracts to Design, Build, Operate and Maintain (DBO), water and
waste-water treatment plants across 232 sites in Ireland. The
contracts are worth a massive total of 1.4bn and most are set to
run up to 2030. It is estimated that Irish Water (previously the local
authorities) are paying out 123 million per annum to the private
companies to cover the operation/maintenance/repayment costs of
these PPP contracts.
Drawing on figures from the Comptroller and Auditor General, Dail
records, and information gathered from the websites of private
water companies, I have compiled information on the twenty
largest water/waste-water treatment plant PPPs in Ireland. The
value of these, at 680 million, is almost half the value of all the
water/waste-water PPPs. This information is presented in the table
below[i].
Table 1 Details of the 20 largest Water/WasteWater PPP
Projects in Ireland, 2015
MEDIA-WRAPPER-START-1
Public Private Partnerships introduced in 1999 in Ireland
PPPs were first introduced in the delivery of public infrastructure
(schools, motorways, social housing, water treatment plants etc) in
Ireland by the Fianna Fail and the PD Government in 1999,
following lobbying by IBEC and the Construction Industry
Federation. Pilot PPP projects were developed in the delivery of
motorways (toll roads), schools, rail (the LUAS), and water and
waste-water treatment plants. New PPPs were developed in these
sectors through the early 2000s and extended to include social
housing regeneration projects.
PPPs are different from public delivery of infrastructure. For
example, in 'traditional' public water and waste-water service and
infrastructure delivery, treatment plants would be designed and
planned in-house within the local authority (and if they required
additional finance, also by the Department of Environment), and
then either directly built by public labour or, in recent decades,
contracted out to a private company to build. Then the
infrastructure was taken and managed by the local authority. By
contrast DBO (or DBOM as they are also referred to) PPPs involve
the outsourcing of the entire process, including design, operation
and maintenance of the infrastructure, to commercial private water
corporations, for contracts usually lasting twenty years. Some
PPPs also include the use of private finance to fund the
infrastructure (referred to as DBOF PPPs).
In the various National Development Plans in the 2000s Irish
governments outlined how they aimed to increase PPPs to 15 per
cent of all public capital investment by the end of that decade. In
2012 the C & AG showed that PPPs to the value of almost 8bn
had been developed in Ireland, mainly in Schools, Roads and
Water/Waste water sectors (figures show that, excluding
water/waste water, 2.3bn has been spent on PPPs, and there is
4.1bn outstanding in commitments to be paid to PPP projects).
Ten ways PPPs are privatisation

A major issue of debate and concern about PPPs has been their
role in the privatisation of public infrastructure and services.
Governments, civil servants and local authorities have been
arguing from the start of PPPs that they are not a form of
privatisation as there is no asset transfer or disposal of assets.
For example the DOE stated in 2010 that, A fundamental principle
of DBOs in the water services sector is that, while the
infrastructure is operated under contract to the water services
authority, it remains at all times in the authoritys ownership.
However, the evidence and research (detailed in my book Public
Private Partnerships in Ireland, which was based on my PhD
research) into the practical outcomes of PPPs in Ireland and
across the world proves conclusively that they are a disturbing
form of privatisation through outsourcing.
In the early 1990s, particularly in the UK and Latin America, PPPs
were promoted by governments, in response to growing public
opposition to privatisation, as a new method of public infrastructure
and service delivery that did not appear as privatisation. But PPPs,
as I will show, actually continue the privatisation and
neoliberalisation of public services. They were strongly promoted
by New Labour in the UK, and by key international institutions,
such as the EU, IMF, OECD and the World Bank.
In the following sections I show ten ways by which PPPs are a
form of privatisation of the public water/waste-water system and
lead to a further embedding of privatisation, marketisation and
commodification processes within the public water/waste-water
system.
1.PPPs mean loss of control to global water corporations

Firstly, there is the loss of control over public water and waste-
water infrastructure from accountable public agencies (local
authorities) to global commercial corporations. Analysis of the data
in Table 1 shows that, of these 20 largest PPPs, 90% (18) of the
companies were foreign multinationals or Irish subsidiaries of
foreign multinationals. This represents a major loss of control over
our public water infrastructure. This is nothing short of privatisation.
When control over public infrastructure is transferred from the
public sector to the private sector, it should be classified as a form
of privatisation. The following section provides an overview of
these private companies.
Veolia Water Ireland has seven of the largest 20 PPP contracts
(35%), at a value of 120 million. These include the two large PPP
water treatment plants (Clareville in Limerick and Barrow
Abstraction, Kildare) and waste-water plants in Castlebar,
Donegal, Mullingar, Wicklow and Dungarvan. But on its website,
Veolia explains that it operates many more treatment plants across
the country. It states that their operating contracts provide water-
related services for a population equivalent of close to 1,000,000
people in the Republic of Ireland operating more than 30 plants
within Ireland, encompassing wastewater, potable water and
sludge treatment. Veolia Water Ireland is a subsidiary of the
French multinational company, Veolia, which is the largest private
water company in the world. Veolia has global revenue of 24bn
and manages 4,245 drinking water plants and 3,300 waste-water
treatment plants globally. It also has the contract to operate the
LUAS and various private waste collection services. Veolia Water
(Ireland) also has non-domestic water metering and billing
contracts with a number of county councils.
The company with the next largest share of these 20 largest PPP
contracts was Aecom, with five projects (25% of the projects -
valued at 99million) including the Balbriggan /Skerries
Wastewater Treatment plant, the Rush/Lusk Wastewater
Treatment plant and the South Tipperary treatment plant. Aecom
(formerly Earthtech Irl) is a multi-billion (revenue of 17.4bn) US
multinational engineering corporation. But it combines financing,
design, building, and, as it states a global network of experts
delivering water and energy, building iconic skyscrapers, planning
new cities, restoring damaged environments, asset management,
cyber security operations, education, healthcare, transport. They
are a complete government infrastructure delivery corporation.
Aecom has approximately 95,000 employees and is listed on the
new York stock exchange.
Next up is Celtic Anglian Water (CAW), which has three projects
and operates the largest waste-water treatment plant in the
country, the Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Works, which
provides secondary and tertiary treatment for a population
equivalent of 1,700,000. The contract value is 250 million and
runs up to 2022. In 2001 CAW was the first private company to be
awarded a contract for the operation and maintenance of a Water
Treatment Plant in the Republic of Ireland. It also runs the Galway
County Non-Domestic Metering System (including debt recovery,
billing etc) a contract valued at 10.8 million running up to 2018.
CAW is a subsidiary company of Anglian Water Group, one of the
largest private water companies in England where water is
privatised. Anglian made an operating profit in the UK of 452.6
million for 2014/15.
2.PPPs involve privatisation of policy making

Secondly, PPPs involve the loss of control over public
infrastructure and governance through the privatization
(outsourcing) of the process of policy making including the macro-
level analysis of the effectiveness and appropriateness of PPPs as
a general policy, the design of frameworks for implementation, and
down to the micro-level assessment of Value for Money for
individual projects and the design and planning of the
infrastructure. One of the major private companies given
responsibility for such processes by the Irish state is
PriceWaterHouseCooper (PWC) consultants, one of the big four
global auditing, procurement and accountancy firms. PWC have
played a central role in advising Irish government Departments to
develop PPPs in water and waste water infrastructure. The
Department of Finance appointed PWC in 2001 to review the
effectiveness of the PPP method and, unsurprisingly, they
recommended further expanding the PPP programme. They also
outlined the policy framework required to increase the rate of
implementation of PPPs in Ireland. PWC were also commissioned
by the Department of the Environment in 2001 to develop a
framework for PPPs to be advanced in Ireland in the roads, water
and waste sectors. PWC also carried out the report in November
2011 for the Department of Environment which advised how Irish
Water should be set up (for which PWC were paid a tidy sum of
180,000). They are also involved in evaluating PPP projects on
behalf of local authorities and government Departments to assess
if they are value for money (VFM). The result of their Value for
Money (VFM) Public Sector Benchmark calculation provides the
justification if infrastructure is to be procured through PPPs or the
public sector method. PWC have also been involved in bidding for
water privatization across the world, most notoriously in India
(where the World Bank was found to have unethically supported
them).
There is a clear conflict of interest here as the same private
company which promotes PPPs internationally and is set to gain
financially from the expansion of PPPs is being used by
government and local authorities to advise on the continued use of
PPPs and crucially, assess if PPPs provide VFM or not.
3.No meaningful ownership or control held by the state in

PPPs
Thirdly, while the state claims they still have the ownership of the
infrastructure, the reality of PPPs is that when the infrastructure is
managed, maintained and operated by the private sector in long
term contracts, there is in fact no meaningful ownership or control
by the state. The private sector controls the day-to-day operation
and thus has control over the knowledge and management of the
infrastructure, so in terms of real control and power the private
operator holds it.
This lack of control and the embedding of permanent private
control and profiteering is shown by the experience of the Dublin
(Ringsend) waste-water treatment plant. Local residents have
suffered persistent foul odour problems emanating from the plant
due to inadequate design and equipment failure in the plant. There
has been an on-going dispute between the responsible local
authority, Dublin City Council, and the private operator, Celtic
Anglian Water (CAW), over the extent of the problems and who
should pay for them. CAW argued that DCC would have to pay for
any changes as they would be outside the PPP contract. In the
end, DCC paid CAW 35million to address the problem.
This contradicts the theory of PPPs where they are supposed to
provide a cost benefit to the state by transferring the cost of
dealing with unforseen problems such as this (referred to as risk)
over to the private sector. This case shows that as the private
company now controls the project and thus has the core
knowledge and skills, it can define the issue, the problem and the
cost of rectifying it. It can effectively hold the state to ransom and
force the state to pay significant additional amounts to get any
changes made. That is unless the state is prepared to sanction
and fine the company, or at least stand up to and demand lower
costs from it. But the Irish state has shown that it is unwilling to do
this because it doesnt want to stop future companies engaging in
PPPs. Its part of the price of having a business friendly economy.
The state (the Irish public) keeps picking up the tab and
subsidising the private corporations.
4.When upgrading of infrastructure required PPP contracts

will continue to go to private operators
Fourthly, what will happen in future years when upgrading, or
capacity extension is required in the treatment plants, or new
measures to meet new environmental quality standards outside of
the original contract are required and thus renegotiation of the PPP
contracts? The private operator will hold the control and knowledge
and will be able to charge the state significant premiums to make
changes. The case of the West-Link toll road demonstrates this
point. When the public sector required changes to the service, it
had to pay over half a billion euro to purchase the PPP contract
from the private operator so that it could undertake the required
changes. Furthermore, who is likely to get the new contracts for
upgrading infrastructure? A new private company or the state
itself? The problem with the PPPs is that the private operator
effectively holds a form of monopoly position and thus it is likely to
get it. The is shown by the fact that CAW was awarded a further
DBOM contract to upgrade the Sligo Plant by Irish Water in April
this year.
5.PPPs make private outsourcing of our public water/waste

water infrastructure permanent and full privatisation more
likely
Fifthly, what will happen when it comes to the end of the PPP
contract life in fifteen to twenty years time? Will the plants, as the
state claims, revert back to public ownership when the contract
ends? This is very unlikely if we continue down the PPP
outsourcing path when we have run down and further diminished
the capacity of local authorities to manage our water and waste
water infrastructure. It is more likely to stay in the control of private
operators into perpetuity. This shows how PPPs make private
outsourcing of our public water/waste water infrastructure
permanent and thus are likely to lead to a continued and
deepening privatisation and contracting out.
This is also shown by the fact that DBO PPPs appear to be the
only option being made available to (and preferred by) local
authorities (now Irish Water) and there is no longer a public sector
alternative being made available. Thus PPP privatisation is the
only option for upgrading and providing new water services
infrastructure. The 2010 Department of Environment Report on the
Value for Money for Review of the Water Services Investment
Programme 2007-2009, states this explicitly:
in the case of water services infrastructure, the DBO model is the
preferred procurement route in the case of works involving the
provision of treatment plants subject to completion. This review
also recommends deepening private involvement further by
involving private finance in the future in relation to some large
scale projects.
Therefore existing PPPs lay the foundation for the further
development of PPPs in this area as is shown by the trend towards
the increased use of PPPs over time. Getting private companies
into design, build, operate and manage the water/waste water
infrastructure is thus the thin edge of a wedge that opens up the
potential for complete privatisation.
The private companies themselves highlight this as they use their
existing contracts to try get more PPPs. Veolia explains how they
leverage the experience, stability and geographical coverage of
their existing 20-year PPP contracts in order to offer present and
future customers a cost effective outsourcing solution. While CAW
is even more bold in their ambitions stating that they aim to
become the leading water and waste water service provider in
Ireland. Is that not the complete private corporate takeover of the
public water infrastructure system?
Ultimately these DBO PPPs make it even more straightforward
and easier (and thus more likely) to privatise water/waste water
infrastructure in the future because the only public aspect
remaining to be privatised is the official ownership of the
infrastructure. It is only a Ministers signature away from the sale
and complete transfer to the private sector.
6.PPPs commodify and marketise public infrastructure

Sixth, PPPs also commodify and marketise this public
infrastructure by creating a new market in the provision of public
water/waste-water infrastructure, through the conversion of the
entire process of the provision of public water/waste-water
infrastructure into a contract which is a tradeable asset or
commodity. They thus open up public infrastructure and assets as
income generating opportunities for the private companies.
For example, EPS, one of the Irish private water companies that
has two waste-water PPP contracts (and an annual turnover
nearing 70 million) explains how they have been at the forefront
of the development of the Irish water market through successive
National Development Plan cycles and they have nurtured a
market leading share of the Design-Build-Operate (DBO) market in
Ireland. Similarly Celtic Anglian Water refer to the public
infrastructure as an asset. CAW explains that it operates in the
development of water and wastewater assets - providing water
supply, wastewater treatment, plant operation and maintenance
services. So these private water companies are quite clear how
PPPs are a marketisation or market-creating process of
commodifying public water/waste water infrastructure.
And make no mistake about it, water/waste-water infrastructure
provision is a massive potential market. There are approximately
973 public water supplies and approximately 500 waste water
treatment plants in Ireland. That means that based on 115 DBO
contracts, approximately 20% of our waste water treatment plants
are already part privatised/outsourced. And given the need to
upgrade treatment plants to meet environmental quality standards
major investment is required into the future in treatment plants.
You can also add upgrades and improvements required for the
entire water treatment network on top of that. We can see
therefore how this whole area is a potentially very large and
lucrative future market for the private water companies. And this
requirement to upgrade this infrastructure such as water and waste
water treatment plants is being eyed up as a big opportunity for
profit by many companies. The Irish Times reported earlier this
year that The Denis OBrien-owned industrial services
group Actavo is likely to seek more work from State utility Irish
Water as the State utility moved ahead with plans to renew the
Republics water treatment and supply systems, Actavo would bid
for contracts to work on the various projects that this is likely to
involve.
7. Water infrastructure becomes commodities traded on

financial markets-no democracy
Seventh, further marketization takes place as the PPP contracts
themselves are a tradeable commodity on financial markets. PPP
contracts and companies are bought and sold for profit all the time
on financial markets and international asset markets, between
various private equity investors, hedge funds, and corporations.
They are often loaded with debt from other companies and then
asset sweating is undertaken whereby the new owners (financial
speculators) dont invest in the project but extract as much profit as
possible (through, as I later explain, reducing quality of service,
workers pay and conditions, increasing user charges, increasing
the cost charged to the state etc).
As I wrote in my book this also has implications for the democratic
provision and accountability of public services: "The process of
buying and selling public assets as internationally traded
commodities could have significant implications not just for the
provision of public services and infrastructure, but for the
democratic control by national governments over the services for
which they have the responsibility to provide to their public."
8.PPPs do not provide Value for Money as profits extracted by

private sector
Eighth, PPPs are also a deeper form of privatisation than simple
public asset sales because they involve the on-going subsidisation
of private corporations by the state and the public (through
contract fees, tolls, user charges) for decades through the PPP
contracts. Thus PPPs provide huge profits to the private
corporations. Take Veolia Water Ireland, for example, it increased
its revenue from 36.6 million in 2014 to 40.3 million in 2015.
Their profit was 0.8 million in 2015 and 1.2 million in 2014.
Financial data for CAW shows that in 2015 it had 30.1 million
turnover and made 4.4 million in profit (in 2014 it made 6.6mil in
profit). Thats just two companies and based on Dail figures private
water/waste water companies are receiving a revenue of at least
123 million a year from the Irish tax payer.
This profit extraction is a key part of the explanation of why PPPs
are actually more expensive than traditional delivery. How can they
provide VFM when huge profits are being extracted? This is a
significant additional cost that is not included or measured in the
VFM calculations. This asset grab by private corporations is a
loss of resources and value for the Irish public as they have to pay
for this profit, which does not exist to the same extent in traditional
public procurement (provision) of water/waste-water infrastructure.
Dr. Vandana Shiva has written about this in relation to the
privatisation of Delhis water supply in India through a PPP water
treatment plant operated by Ondeo Degremont (a subsidiary of
French company Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux Water Divisionthe
water giant of the world):
Suez is not bringing in private foreign investment. It is
appropriating public investment. Public-private partnerships are, in
effect, private appropriation of public investment. But the financial
costs are not the highest costs. The real costs are social and
ecological. Interestingly, Ondeo Degremont constructed (and is
possibly still operating) Corks largest waste-water treatment plant.
The Comptroller and Auditor General has found that PPPs are 8-
13% more expensive than traditional public procurement. Reeves
(2011) found that for a number of water based PPPs the initial
estimation of VFM under PPP was revised downwards from 9.5
per cent to 0.8 per cent (of whole-life cost under traditional
procurement) following consultation with stakeholders including
trade unions. In another case Reeves (2013) shows that after
consultation, estimated VFM was revised from 2.3 per cent in
favour of PPP to 2.25 per cent in favour of traditional procurement.
These revisions were attributable to a number of shortcomings in
the original VFM analyses including the omission of relevant costs
including: (i) costs incurred following the re-deployment of existing
labour if PPP was adopted; (ii) transaction costs; (iii) and the costs
of monitoring and supervising the PPP contract over the 20 year
period.
There is another democratic deficit at the heart of PPPs which
links to their inability to prove they provide Value for Money. The
Public Sector Benchmark (PSB) VFM calculation (often carried out
by pro-PPP companies like PWC) is not available for public
analysis due to commercial sensitivity. Yet this is the key
evidence that justifies PPPs- but we cannot see it. Therefore there
is no evidenced way of showing these projects actually are value
for money.
9. PPPs involve reduction in workers pay, conditions and

rights.
The ninth way in which PPPs are a form of privatization is the
reduction in workers pay, conditions and rights. A key method by
which PPPs are used to reduce costs is through such a reduction
in the conditions and pay of employees. As with other forms of
privatisation and outsourcing PPPs have been associated with a
degrading of workers conditions and, in particular, a tendency to
refuse trade union recognition. For example, in 2013 it was
reported that an employee in the Shanganagh PPP Waste Water
Treatment Plant was dismissed 'for trade union organised activity.
Workers there organised a strike as the employers refused to
recognise the trade union and there were other issues around fair
pay for hours and shifts worked. The private operator of the PPP
plant is SDD Shanganagh Water Treatment Ltd, which is a joint
venture between the Irish construction company, Sisk, and
Spanish companies Dragados and Drace. However, the workers
were, in fact, employed by a separate subcontracted agency. Thus
we see how PPPs further the process of the casualisation and
downgrading of workers conditions and undermine and reduce
hard-fought rights and conditions of public sector employees such
as trade union recognition and collective bargaining. Through
PPPs it is the state (which, of course, should be protecting and
promoting workers rights) that is playing a central role in driving
down workers conditions.
10.PPPs support water charges and furthers privatisation

The tenth and final way PPPs support privatisation is their
promotion and support for user charges such as water charges
and the way in which this furthers the privatisation process within
the water system.
The introduction of user fees/charges for public services has been
central to the neoliberal policy agenda which is about convincing
the public to accept that they have to pay for public services
through user fees, even if they were previously paid for from
general taxation and were free at the point of delivery.
PPPs have already facilitated the introduction and intensification of
this policy through the introduction of user fees for toll roads. The
Irish state has supported this process of profiting from PPPs. In
one of the interviews in my research a senior civil servant working
in a Central Government PPP unit told me that it has to be a quid
pro-quo that the private sector gets profit, while it might cost more
for the user. There has to be profit, otherwise it doesnt work.
Indeed, the Irish government has promoted the unlimited potential
for the development of PPPs funded by user fees. Assistant
Secretary of the Department of the Taoiseach, Mary Doyle,
speaking at the 3rd Annual PPP Policy Forum (2007) explained
that, since Ireland is the home of the entrepreneur there is no limit
on any projects that can be undertaken by PPP where they are
funded entirely by using charges. The roads, schools, waste and
water/waste-water sectors demonstrate how, because the private
sector required an income stream (profit) as the basis of its
involvement, the use of PPPs necessitated, the commercialisation
of, and private-capital control over, public resources and assets. As
a representative of the Department of Environment explained to
me in an interview:
The private sector may be able to generate additional revenues
from third parties, thereby reducing the cost of any public-sector
subvention required. Additional revenue may be generated through
the use of spare capacity or the disposal of surplus assets
Through the application of these income-generating mechanisms,
PPPs facilitate the implementation of a central neoliberal policy
objective of creating unlimited market opportunities for the private
sector within public governance, services and infrastructure
(Bourdieu, 1998; Brenner and Theodore, 2002; Harvey, 2005;
Whitfield, 2006).
And, as we see more and more PPP contracts made by Irish water
this increases the financial commitment to PPP companies and,
thus in the future, an argument could be made for introducing
and/or increasing water charges in order to pay for these contracts
with PPP companies. A revenue stream will be required to pay the
private operators. Thus PPPs open up the argument and
requirement for the introduction/increase of water charges and the
introduction of water charges opens up, and provides, the revenue
stream to pay private operators. PPPs and water charges are,
therefore, a mutually reinforcing process as the introduction of one
leads to arguments in favour of the necessity of the introduction of
the other. And they both provide key steps towards the further
privatisation of the Irish public water system.
Conclusion
Overall then we can see from the evidence presented here the
dangerous amount of power and influence that global corporations
are being given through PPP projects in the water/waste-water
infrastructure in Ireland, and the way in which the state is actively
facilitating this neoliberalisation of water governance. Private
corporations, facilitated by the Irish state, are imposing their
corporate model as the future for government and public service
and infrastructure delivery. It is a dystopian future for citizens
whereby private corporations will provide and profit from (and
speculatively trade on financial markets) all aspects of government
including public services and infrastructure through highly
profitable contracts paid for by nation states and local government.
It is the ultimate privatisation and commodification of all public
goods and infrastructure. This is the neoliberal project laid bare.
What David Harvey describes as accumulation by dispossession.
It is about taking the resources (and assets) away from state public
services and infrastructure which benefit the working and middle
classes and instead funnelling them to the wealthy and private
corporations. PPPs are playing a strategic role in this process of
capturing public services and assets for private investment and
wealth accumulation. The global and EU trade liberalisation rules
and new treaties such as CETA and TTIP also support PPPs by
further obliging national governments to liberalise markets for
services and infrastructure on a global scale.
An excellent article critiquing the impact of PPPs and water
privatisation in India describes the process of privatisation through
PPPs which can also be applied to the Irish case:
But whatever the nuances, although formal ownership continues
to nominally vest with public entities, all these public-private
partnerships are undoubtedly different forms of privatization, with
public bodies ceding varying degrees of control over quantity,
quality, coverage and pricing to corporate bodies. Since the private
party is in the business for profit, water in such privatized utilities is
always viewed, valued and managed in terms of its price.
Whatever the specific form of involvement of private players, water
moves from being a common good to a commodity, with all that
this implies.
The evidence shows, therefore, that PPPs are a complex form of
intensive privatization, marketization and commodification of the
Irish public water and waste-water infrastructure system. Private-
sector involvement has not guaranteed a better-quality service and
additionally, the private operators profit maximisation requirements
has resulted in the running down of service quality, workers
conditions and turning the assets into commodities to be profited
from. They ensure big profits for global water and
governance/development corporations and financial investors and
rising costs and ineffective services for public service users, and
the erosion of workers rights. Thus they contribute to the
exacerbation of economic inequality.
The values and ideals of social rights that inform public-sector
values and priorities are undermined by the market ethos of PPP
policy making. Under this process, public service users are
converted into clients and consumers and a revenue stream. All
of this evidence shows how the pursuit of PPPs are an ideological
policy. The evidence does not support the use of PPPs in public
water and waste water infrastructure provision. They are being
pursued principally because of policy makers adherence to (and
belief in) neoliberal privatisiation policies rather than any evidence
based justification.
Remunicipalisation
In recent years governments and local authorities across the
world, in response to the failure of water privatisation such as
increased water charges and poor service delivery by the private
companies, and under pressure from citizen campaigns asserting
the human right to water, have started a process of
remunicipalisation taking water and waste-water services back
into public management. Our public water future: The global
experience with remunicipalisation, a book published last year
shows the growing wave of cities putting water back under public
control with 235 cases of water remunicipalisation in 37
countries, affecting over 100 million people, between 2000 and
2015. The number of cases doubled in the 2010-2015 period
compared with 2000-2010. France, a country that spearheaded
water privatisation and PPPs has lead the way with 94 cases of
remunicipalisation. Also recently a large majority of the Barcelona
City Council voted to end the private management of water and
support the remunicipalisation of the water service in of Barcelona.
Barcelona En Comu, the new citizens movement who holds the
Mayorality of Barcelona, promoted the measure as it was one of
the most popular among citizens in their participatory process
carried out to define the Municipal Action Plan (the plan that guides
city policy). Barcelona En Com, believes that water is a human
right, a basic service and a common good that should be under
public, democratic control.
Slovenia also recently amended its constitution to make access to
drinkable water a fundamental right for all citizens and stop it being
commercialised.
The new article in the constitution reads that Water resources
represent a public good that is managed by the state. Water
resources are primary and durably used to supply citizens with
potable water and households with water and, in this sense, are
not a market commodity.
It was reported in the Guardian that the Slovenian Prime Minister
encouraged the change because: people should protect water
the 21st centurys liquid gold at the highest legal leveland that
Slovenian water has very good quality and, because of its value,
in the future it will certainly be the target of foreign countries and
international corporations appetitesAs it will gradually become a
more valuable commodity in the future, pressure over it will
increase and we must not give in. Slovenia is the first European
Union country to include the right to water in its constitution, while
15 other countries across the world had already done so.
The on-going implementation of PPPs shows that the Irish public
water system has already been part-privatised/outsourced and
without a change of direction and policy it is in danger of being
further marketised and privatised. This lends support to the case
being made for a Referendum that could enshrine the Irish water
system as a public good and human right in the Constitution and
thus provide a constitutional guarantee on the public ownership of
our water. The Expert Commission found that the most commonly
expressed preferred method for confirming Irish Water in public
ownership was by a constitutional amendment, and that the
provision for a plebiscite, as provided for in the existing legislation
did not provide the necessary level of guarantee.
Right2Water has proposed the following wording that could be

inserted into the Constitution to enshrine this:
The Government shall be collectively responsible for the
protection, management and maintenance of the public water
system. The Government shall ensure in the public interest
that this resource remains in public ownership and
management.
The passing of such a referendum is an essential step in stopping
the full privatisation of our public water system and, in particular,
would put a halt to the back door creeping privatisation of through
PPPs in water and waste-water infrastructure and support the
remunicipalisation (taking back into public control) of the existing
PPP water projects.
Sources:
Hearne, R. (2011) Public Private Partnerships in Ireland: failed
experiment or the way forward? Manchester University Press
Available at:
http://www.academia.edu/30178583/Trends_in_historical_develop
ment_of_the_Irish_state_public_services_and_infrastructure
Hearne (2012) http://politico.ie/society/public-private-partnerships-
ireland-failed-experiment-or-way-forward
Hearne (2009) Origins, Development and Outcomes of Public
Private Partnerships in Ireland: The Case of PPPs in Social
Housing Regeneration Dr Rory Hearne
http://www.combatpoverty.ie/publications/workingpapers/2009-
07_WP_PPPsIn...
Alan Kelly, 28th April 2015, Dail Eireann,
https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-04-28a.1222
Comptroller and Auditor General (2016) Briefing Note on PPPs
https://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/pac/corres
pondence/2016meetings/meeting4-21072016/PAC32-R-42-B-(B)---
Briefing-Note-on-PPPs-from-CAG.pdf
Comptroller and Auditor General (2011) Annual Report
http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/annualreports/2011/report/en/
Chapter6_01.pdf
Irish Times (2008) Report recommends upgrade of Ringsend
waste plant
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/report-recommends-upgrade-of-
ringsend-was...
Hell Bent on Water Privatisatin in Dehli
(http://newsclick.in/india/hell-bent-water-privatization-delhi)
Oireachtas (2013) Public Private Partnerships Data, July 2013,
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates
%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail2013071600112
Reeves, E. (2014) Public Capital Investment and Public Private
Partnerships in Ireland 2000-2014: A Review of the Issues and
Performance
https://www.socialjustice.ie/sites/default/files/attach/policy-issue-
article/4004/2014-11-18-eoinreeves-investmentandppps.pdf
Shiva, V. (2006) RESISTING WATER PRIVATISATION, BUILDING
WATER DEMOCRACY,
http://www.globalternative.org/downloads/shiva-water.pdf
The 2010 Department of Environment Report on the Value for
Money for Review of the Water Services Investment Programme
2007-2009
The Guardian (2016) Slovenia Adds Water to Constitution
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/18/slovenia-
adds-water-...
[i] I have not, as of yet, been able to gather data on the other 95
water/waste-water DBO PPP contracts because they are of a
smaller individual value and have been undertaken directly by local
authorities with little input from the Department of Environment.
Therefore the C & AG does not provide the same level of detail on
these projects.
WATER COMMISSION REPORT
VINDICATES RIGHT2WATER
CAMPAIGN
The publication of the report by the Expert Commission on water

has vindicated everything the Right2Water campaign has been
saying for almost three years. Water should be paid for through
general taxation which is the most socially equitable, economically
beneficial and environmentally sound.
Frustratingly, had an arrogant government and media listened to
our campaign and people in communities across this country, we
would not have wasted 1 billion on water meters and establishing
Irish Water as a commercial entity. Even Engineers Ireland warned
the government back in 2010 that bringing in water charges would
mean "spending 1bn of money we dont have on something we
dont need.
The key findings of the report include:
9 That Irish people already pay for their water through taxation and
that water funded through general taxation is not free but paid for
by the taxpayer.
9 Access to adequate clean water for living requirements should not
be determined by affordability.
9 A referendum is necessary to protect our public water system from
privatisation.
9 Ireland has one of the highest rates of water availability in the
world, with water availability per person four times higher than
France and fifty times higher than Israel.
9 The expert commission has not seen any evidence that Ireland
has particularly high levels of domestic water usage and Irish
people are at the lower end of the spectrum when it comes to
comparing water usage among other European countries.
9 Irish people use between 15-25 percent less water than the UK,
where water charges have been in place since 1989.
9 Water charges do not result in water conservation unless they
include education and information. Therefore, it can be established
that it is education and information which results in water
conservation, not the charges.
9 Commercial companies are not paying their water bills with almost
half refusing to pay. Ensuring a comprehensive commercial water
charges regime should reduce dependence on general taxation.
9 There are no abstraction charges for our natural spring water on
private companies like Britvic (Ballygowan) who pay nothing when
bottling our natural spring water for profit. This should be
addressed.
9 Metering should only be done on an optional basis.
9 Group schemes should have an allowance in order to create
equity.
9 There is a need for investment of 5.5bn in our infrastructure by
2021.
9 The water charges regime does not have political support or
popular acceptance.
9 Flat rate charges are regressive and do not address the issue of
conservation. Also, a water charge added to a property tax leads to
unfairness in the system.
9 The water charges regime was intended to reduce household
consumption of water by a mere 6%, yet the system leaks 41% of
all treated water. The best way to reduce waste is to fix the leaks.
9 While considerable weight must be given to the opinion of the
European Commission, the definitive interpretation of European
law is a matter for the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Borrowings?
Importantly, the Commission states that because the funding of
domestic water should come from general taxation in public
ownership, it will no longer achieve the off balance sheet
exercise. This will reduce or potentially eliminate the need for
borrowing which inevitably leads to debt and the servicing of that
debt by households diverting money directly into the financial
services sector instead of the water infrastructure.
Leakages
The report says that there are 7% of households using six times
more water than the average household, although Irish Water have
indicated that customer-side leaks contribute to this anomaly.
However, it is estimated that up to 97% of leaks do not come from
the household side of the infrastructure and the report states it
should be noted that water leaks waste not only water but also
energy and public money. Therefore, it makes sense to divert all
money from the domestic metering programme towards a district
metering programme as recommended in the report.
Water Charges
The Expert Commission has suggested that where water is used
at a level above what is necessary for normal domestic purposes,
that the user should pay for this through tariffs. The suggestion is
that an allowance is determined and this allowance could be
regularly reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted to reflect changes
in water use patterns in Ireland.
As stated earlier, the evidence provided shows that Irish people
are not profligate with their water and in fact use less water than
almost any other country in the Europe despite having more water
available to us.
There are also very serious concerns about any allowances being
eroded over time, like bin charges.
Therefore, continuing an expensive water metering programme
with the added costs of highly paid consultants, advertising,
postage, call centres and other costs, for no conservational benefit
would be an extraordinary waste of valuable resources, costing up
to 300m per year and returning potentially nothing.
The government and the Oireachtas sub-committee should accept
the will of the electorate two thirds of whom voted for parties and
individuals who promised abolition. This is now also backed up by
an Irish Times MRBI poll which also says two thirds of the
population want to scrap the charges.
With all of this in mind, it is essential that water charges are
abolished outright.
Funding?
In addressing the funding of water services, the Commission
suggests that the funding requirements which were to be allocated
through domestic water charges are now made through the
exchequer rather than by householders directly.
The current government and the previous government must take
responsibility for the leakages and deteriorated infrastructure that
Irish people currently have to rely on. In the last three Budgets
alone, tax cuts of 2.9 billion have been implemented. The
beneficiaries of those tax cuts are the top 20% of earners and also
employers. In ensuring our water system is fit for purpose, the
government should immediately:
Cease all cuts to progressive taxation.
Stop the metering programme and wasting money on the vanity
project that is Irish Water.
Increase taxation revenue by implementing the Fiscal Framework
Document set out by the Right2Water Trade Unions in 2015
which could raise up to 10 billion. This would not only fix and
upgrade the water infrastructure, but could also address our
housing and homelessness crisis, along with our healthcare,
education and other underfunded public services.
Media Failure
It is felt that the majority of the Irish media failed in their duty to
facilitate an honest and democratic debate about the Irish
governments water policy.
While a number of trade unions, political representatives and
community groups were attempting to raise real and valid issues in
relation to water charges and their implications locally, nationally
and internationally, a compliant media refused to accept the
arguments put forward and even refused to allow a debate to
ensue.
Even now, faced with all of the evidence which shows that Ireland
is a water rich country and that Irish people do not waste water,
many media outlets refuse to accept the fact that water charges
are economically inefficient, theyre environmentally unsound and
socially destructive.
Furthermore, protesters were and continue to be demonised and
vilified for their stance on water charges, yet this report now
vindicates what they have said all along: that paying for water
through progressive general taxation is the fairest and most
equitable method possible.
As Maude Barlow, environmentalist and expert on water from the
Blue Planet Project and the Council of Canadians said, The Irish
system of paying for water and sanitation services through
progressive taxation and non-domestic user fees is an exemplary
model of fair, equitable and sustainable service delivery for the
entire world.
Right2Water remains committed to its stated objective of the
abolition of water charges and Irish Water.
WATER COMMISSION REPORT

VINDICATES RIGHT2WATER
CAMPAIGN
30 November, 2016
The publication of the report by the Expert Commission on water

has vindicated everything the Right2Water campaign has been
saying for almost three years. Water should be paid for through
general taxation which is the most socially equitable, economically
beneficial and environmentally sound.
Frustratingly, had an arrogant government and media listened to
our campaign and people in communities across this country, we
would not have wasted 1 billion on water meters and establishing
Irish Water as a commercial entity. Even Engineers Ireland warned
the government back in 2010 that bringing in water charges would
mean "spending 1bn of money we dont have on something we
dont need.
The key findings of the report include:
9 That Irish people already pay for their water through taxation and
that water funded through general taxation is not free but paid for
by the taxpayer.
9 Access to adequate clean water for living requirements should not
be determined by affordability.
9 A referendum is necessary to protect our public water system from
privatisation.
9 Ireland has one of the highest rates of water availability in the
world, with water availability per person four times higher than
France and fifty times higher than Israel.
9 The expert commission has not seen any evidence that Ireland
has particularly high levels of domestic water usage and Irish
people are at the lower end of the spectrum when it comes to
comparing water usage among other European countries.
9 Irish people use between 15-25 percent less water than the UK,
where water charges have been in place since 1989.
9 Water charges do not result in water conservation unless they
include education and information. Therefore, it can be established
that it is education and information which results in water
conservation, not the charges.
9 Commercial companies are not paying their water bills with almost
half refusing to pay. Ensuring a comprehensive commercial water
charges regime should reduce dependence on general taxation.
9 There are no abstraction charges for our natural spring water on
private companies like Britvic (Ballygowan) who pay nothing when
bottling our natural spring water for profit. This should be
addressed.
9 Metering should only be done on an optional basis.
9 Group schemes should have an allowance in order to create
equity.
9 There is a need for investment of 5.5bn in our infrastructure by
2021.
9 The water charges regime does not have political support or
popular acceptance.
9 Flat rate charges are regressive and do not address the issue of
conservation. Also, a water charge added to a property tax leads to
unfairness in the system.
9 The water charges regime was intended to reduce household
consumption of water by a mere 6%, yet the system leaks 41% of
all treated water. The best way to reduce waste is to fix the leaks.
9 While considerable weight must be given to the opinion of the
European Commission, the definitive interpretation of European
law is a matter for the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Borrowings?
Importantly, the Commission states that because the funding of
domestic water should come from general taxation in public
ownership, it will no longer achieve the off balance sheet
exercise. This will reduce or potentially eliminate the need for
borrowing which inevitably leads to debt and the servicing of that
debt by households diverting money directly into the financial
services sector instead of the water infrastructure.
Leakages
The report says that there are 7% of households using six times
more water than the average household, although Irish Water have
indicated that customer-side leaks contribute to this anomaly.
However, it is estimated that up to 97% of leaks do not come from
the household side of the infrastructure and the report states it
should be noted that water leaks waste not only water but also
energy and public money. Therefore, it makes sense to divert all
money from the domestic metering programme towards a district
metering programme as recommended in the report.
Water Charges
The Expert Commission has suggested that where water is used
at a level above what is necessary for normal domestic purposes,
that the user should pay for this through tariffs. The suggestion is
that an allowance is determined and this allowance could be
regularly reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted to reflect changes
in water use patterns in Ireland.
As stated earlier, the evidence provided shows that Irish people
are not profligate with their water and in fact use less water than
almost any other country in the Europe despite having more water
available to us.
There are also very serious concerns about any allowances being
eroded over time, like bin charges.
Therefore, continuing an expensive water metering programme
with the added costs of highly paid consultants, advertising,
postage, call centres and other costs, for no conservational benefit
would be an extraordinary waste of valuable resources, costing up
to 300m per year and returning potentially nothing.
The government and the Oireachtas sub-committee should accept
the will of the electorate two thirds of whom voted for parties and
individuals who promised abolition. This is now also backed up by
an Irish Times MRBI poll which also says two thirds of the
population want to scrap the charges.
With all of this in mind, it is essential that water charges are
abolished outright.
Funding?
In addressing the funding of water services, the Commission
suggests that the funding requirements which were to be allocated
through domestic water charges are now made through the
exchequer rather than by householders directly.
The current government and the previous government must take
responsibility for the leakages and deteriorated infrastructure that
Irish people currently have to rely on. In the last three Budgets
alone, tax cuts of 2.9 billion have been implemented. The
beneficiaries of those tax cuts are the top 20% of earners and also
employers. In ensuring our water system is fit for purpose, the
government should immediately:
Cease all cuts to progressive taxation.
Stop the metering programme and wasting money on the vanity
project that is Irish Water.
Increase taxation revenue by implementing the Fiscal Framework
Document set out by the Right2Water Trade Unions in 2015
which could raise up to 10 billion. This would not only fix and
upgrade the water infrastructure, but could also address our
housing and homelessness crisis, along with our healthcare,
education and other underfunded public services.
Media Failure
It is felt that the majority of the Irish media failed in their duty to
facilitate an honest and democratic debate about the Irish
governments water policy.
While a number of trade unions, political representatives and
community groups were attempting to raise real and valid issues in
relation to water charges and their implications locally, nationally
and internationally, a compliant media refused to accept the
arguments put forward and even refused to allow a debate to
ensue.
Even now, faced with all of the evidence which shows that Ireland
is a water rich country and that Irish people do not waste water,
many media outlets refuse to accept the fact that water charges
are economically inefficient, theyre environmentally unsound and
socially destructive.
Furthermore, protesters were and continue to be demonised and
vilified for their stance on water charges, yet this report now
vindicates what they have said all along: that paying for water
through progressive general taxation is the fairest and most
equitable method possible.
As Maude Barlow, environmentalist and expert on water from the
Blue Planet Project and the Council of Canadians said, The Irish
system of paying for water and sanitation services through
progressive taxation and non-domestic user fees is an exemplary
model of fair, equitable and sustainable service delivery for the
entire world.
Right2Water remains committed to its stated objective of the
abolition of water charges and Irish Water.
Coveney is indicating he won't implement legislation that

he believes is against EU law. He means he won't get rid of
water charges even if the majority of the Dail votes for it.
That's democracy Fine Gael style for you.
Unless Fianna Fail does a dirty backroom deal (always a
possibility), if Coveney holds that position we'll have an
election with water charges and police corruption to the
fore. I wouldn't want to be a Fine Gaeler in that election!
OIREACHTAS COMMITTEE ON FUTURE FUNDING OF WATER
SERVICES-STATE OF PLAY
http://wp.me/pKzXa-nC
CHARGE FOR EXCESSIVE USE OF DOMESTIC WATER IS JUST
A TRICK TO COMMODIFY DOMESTIC WATER AND TO RE-
INTRODUCE DOMESTIC WATER CHARGES BY THE BACK
DOOR AFTER THE NEXT ELECTION
TOTAL MEMERSHIP OF COMMITTEE 20
For 8------(FG, Lab, Green)Against 10----- (FF, SF, AAA-PBP,
S Healy, T Pringle)UNDECLARED Noel Grealish TD Padraig
O Ceide Chair
OIREACHTAS COMMITTEE ON
FUTURE FUNDING OF WATER
SERVICES-STATE OF PLAY
CHARGE FOR EXCESSIVE USE OF DOMESTIC
WATER IS JUST A TRICK TO COMMODIFY
DOMESTIC WATER AND TO RE-INTRODUCE
DOMESTIC WATER CHARGES BY THE BACK
DOOR AFTER THE NEXT ELECTION
FOR A CHARGE FOR EXCESSIVE USE F
Against a Charge for Excessive Use A
Colm Brophy Fine Gael

F
Mary Butler Fianna Fil

A
Barry Cowen Fianna Fil

A
Jim Daly Fine Gael

F
Alan Farrell Fine Gael
F
Noel Grealish Independent

?
Seamus Healy Independent

A
Martin Heydon Fine Gael

F
John Lahart Fianna Fil

A
Paul Murphy AAA PBP

A
Eoin Broin Sinn Fin

A
Jonathan OBrien Sinn Fin

A
Kate OConnell Fine Gael

F
Willie ODea Fianna Fil

A
Jan OSullivan Labour Party

F
Thomas Pringle Independent

A
Senators
Paudie Coffey Fine Gael

F
Lorraine Clifford- Fianna Fil

Lee A
Grace OSullivan (CE-GREEN)

F
Padraig O Ceide Chair ?
For 8(FG, Lab, Green)
Against 10 (FF, SF, AAA-PBP, S Healy, T Pringle)
UNDECLARED Noel Grealish TD Padraig O Ceide Chair
No Charge or Extra Taxation To Pay

for Water Twice-Statement By
Seamus Healy TD
Double Taxation To Pay for
Domestic Water a Second Time
Recommended by Commission
(Comprehensive Analysis of Commission
Report by Cllr Brendan Young and Community
Solidarity N. Kildare Further Down)
Double Taxation To Pay for Domestic Water a Second Time
Recommended by Commission Seamus Healy TD (Member of
Oireachtas Committee on Water Services) calls for complete
abolition of Domestic Water Charges, opposes any payment for
domestic water and rejects any extra taxation to pay for water twice
including a new dedicated water tax similar to Local Property Tax
(LPT). Irish Water must be abolished. I have been nominated to the
Oireachtas Committee On Water Services. I will be resisting these
recommendations.
I will also be organising and participating in mass marches against
the implementation of these recommendations
A majority, 90 of the 158 Teachta Dla (TDs) elected in the last
general election were elected on the basis of complete abolition of
water charges and The Irish Water utility. The combination of Expert
Commission-Oireachtas Committee-Dil Vote in March was devised
by Fianna Fil and Fine Gael after the General Election to negate the
democratic vote of the people and bring back water charges.
The Commission essentially recommends that households pay for
water twice through a combination of charges and taxes. The Report
states:
5.2.17 The recommended Funding Model, if implemented, will
place the main burden of financing the operational cost of providing
domestic water services on the exchequer to be paid for through
taxation. The Question of whether there should be a dedicated tax,
a broadly based fiscal instrument, or an adjustment to existing
taxes to fund this requirement would be a matter of Budgetary
Policy and outside the scope of this report, but is worthy of further
consideration.-Commission Report Page 35
The underlying assumption in the above recommendation is that
domestic water should be paid for by the citizens for a second time.
This must be firmly rejected.
New Dedicated Tax suggests an LPT style arrangement which
would convert a charges system to a tax liability which can be
compulsorily deducted from income at source. This can be imposed
on households with no taxable income (e.g. social welfare/low pay).
A broadly based Fiscal Instrument means that there would be a
specific provision in law for some kind of water or house tax
including water tax. This can be imposed on households with no
taxable income (e.g. social welfare/low pay)
Adjustment to Existing Taxes means that there should be a
general tax increase to pay a second time for water through an
adjustment of rates/bands/ allowances/ tax credits.
The commission has also recommended that Irish Water be retained
and that charges be imposed for extra usage.
Refuse charges were originally introduced at 5. Now hundreds of
Euro are payable. The same will happen with water if there is any
charge for water under any guise.
I have been nominated to the Oireachtas Committee On Water
Services. I will be resisting these recommendations. I will also be
organising and participating in mass marches against the
implementation of these recommendations. The money which is
being paid and was being paid for water services through taxation
for many years was not used for water services but was given to
others and is being spent for other purposes. It is being used to
fund part of the 7 Billion in interest being paid annually on money
borrowed to bail out banks and billionaire bondholders. It is also
being used partly to fund the 172 million reductions of personal
taxes on the top 5% of income recipients on an average of
186,000Eu per year.
The 172 million tax reduction must be cancelled. A tax on the
Financial Assets of the top 10% whose financial assets are now 35
billion above peak boom level could be used to fully fund water
services.
Water charges and Irish water Must Be fully abolished. Domestic
water must not be commodified. We will not pay Twice Seamus
Healy TD 087-2802199
-
Analysis
Report of Expert Commission on
Domestic Public Water Services
Double Taxation To Pay for Water a Second
Time Water Recommended by Commission
5.2.17 The recommended Funding Model, if implemented, will
place the main burden of financing the operational cost of providing
domestic water services on the exchequer to be paid for through
taxation. The Question of whether there should be a dedicated
tax, a broadly based fiscal instrument, or an adjustment to
existing taxes to fund this requirement would be a matter of
Budgetary Policy and outside the scope of this report, but is worthy
of further consideration.-Commission Report Page 35
The underlying assumption in the above recommendation is that
domestic water should be paid for by the citizens for a second time.
This must be firmly rejected.
New Dedicated Tax suggests an LPT style arrangement which
would convert a charges system to a tax liability which can be
compulsorily deducted from income at source. This can be imposed
on deprived househols with no taxable income (eg socia welare)
A boadly based Fiscal Instrument means that there would be a
specific provision in law for some kind of water or house tax
including water tax. This can be imposed on deprived househols
with no taxable income (eg socia welare)
Adjustment to Existing Taxes means that there should be a
general tax increase to pay a second time for water through an
adjustment of rates/bands/ allowances/ tax credits.
The money which is being paid and was being paid for water
services through taxation for many years was not used for water
services BUT WAS GIVEN TO OTHERS AND IS BEING SPENT FOR
OTHER PURPOSES. It is being used to und part of the 7 Billion in
interest being paid annually on money borrowed to bail out banks
and billionaire bondholders. It is also being used partly to fund the
172 million reduction of personal taxes on the top 5% of income
recipients on an average of 186,000Eu per year.
The 172 billion tax reduction must be cancelled. A tax on the
Financial Assets of the top 10% whose financial assets are now 35
billion above peak boom level could be used to fully fund water
services.
Water charges and Irish water Must Be fully abolished. We will not
pay Twice
For Complete Abolition of Water

Charges-Seamus Healy TD(member
of Oireachtas Committee on Water
Services) on TippFM
Click Here for Recording https://youtu.be/zbiCeYguBHA
Healy Opposes Double Taxation to Pay For
Domestic Water
Expert Commission Report on Water Charges:

Community Solidarity North-Kildare response
and proposals. 3 December 2016.
The recommendation by the water charge commission that water
for domestic consumption should be funded from general taxation
(5.2.2) is a victory for the movement against the water charges.
The Report acknowledges the political reality that a majority do not
support water charges (4.7). Mass mobilisation and non-payment
were central to this and the unacknowledged reality that massive
numbers of non-payers could not be brought to court to be forced
to pay: they were the key to victory.
No new water taxes!
While this is a victory, it is only temporary if the charges are
not completely abolished. The Report suggests new, additional
taxes to fund water services (p.1). The recently reported FF
discussion, with FG agreement, on a joint LPT-water tax from 2019
shows the direction of establishment thinking.
We oppose any new taxes to fund water services other than
proper taxation of big business (the 13 billion owed by Apple would
fund infrastructure) and taxes on the rich and their wealth.
No rationale that metering and charging is effective in reducing
consumption or waste
The Report says that allowances for normal consumption should
be funded from general taxation but proposes that wasteful use
should incur charges (5.2.2 and 5.2.3). Metering is the only way
this can be monitored. But it also says that any generous
initial allowance could be changed in the future (5.4.3).
It says wasteful use is small (2.3.5); and that domestic
consumption in Ireland is at the lower end of European consumption
(2.3.6) where metering is widespread. The evidence in Britain is
that metering makes little difference in average domestic
consumption. http://www.heednet.info/meteringdefraHEEDnet.pdf
(p.4) So there is no
rationale in the Report for metering to reduce consumption.
The evidence in the Report is that the annual costs of metering and
billing (operating costs of IW, p.34) is far greater than any charges
that could be recouped from households less than 7% for
supposedly wasteful use (see example below). Yet only half of
commercial water charges are collected (2.4.22). Water used
for business generates profits which are privately appropriated
while the costs of the water are socialised.
Nor does the Report give evidence that the money spent on
metering and billing would conserve more water than equivalent
spending on conservation measures: while metering might save at
best 6% (2.3.8), other measures might save up to 25% (harvesting
for outdoor use; grey water for flushing; p.60).
The proposal for metered allowances and charges to stop
wasteful use is actually cover for a perspective of reducing
these allowances and charging in the future justified by
the false argument that charges significantly reduce
consumption.
Any regime that includes universal domestic metering will
inevitably lead to water charges initially to pay the annual cost of
metering and billing people who supposedly use water wastefully.
Consistent excess-use can be identified through district metering
and such users characterized as commercial users (if
appropriate) and charged accordingly. To argue for charges to stop
wasteful use is a sham argument to justify domestic metering; the
only rationale for domestic metering is domestic water charges at a
later date. We oppose them.
Political demands:
Abolish domestic water charges completely.
Abolish IW and set up a national water authority to co-ordinate and
rationalize the operation of the water service in conjunction with the
Local Councils.
Referendum to prevent privatization of Irelands water services
No new taxes: fund investment in water infrastructure through tax
on big business and the rich.
Fianna Fil and Independents must be forced to oppose

Fine Gael plans for domestic water charges
Agitational proposals:
Scrap the meters. Take out your meter and return it to your local
Council the main contractor for IW.
Boycott IW dont respond to requests for household information to
determine allowances, etc.
Protest: mobilise for a mass demonstration before the Dil vote in
March 2017
Wasteful use metering costs much more than savings
The data from IW shows that domestic consumption in Ireland is at
the lower range of European consumption (2.3.6), where metering
is widespread so there is little to gain from it here. It says there is
little evidence of actual wasteful usage (2.3.5). At present only 7%
of metered households use significantly (six times) more water than
the average and IW admits this is mostly from leaks.
The Report gives no evidence to support the installation and
maintenance of 1.4 million meters to try to impose charges to
reduce a small amount of supposed wasteful usage.
For example: if a four-person household uses six times the normal
amount of water which IW estimates at about 129m3/yr and are
charged for the extra 645m3 that they use, they would pay about
2385 at current IW rates of 3.7 per m3.
If 5% (after leaks are eliminated) of the 1.4 million metered
households do this, the income to IW would be about 167 million.
This would probably fall after the first year as wasteful users
reduce what they use.
But the annual operating costs of IW is 794 million for 2015 and
779 million in 2014 (p.34), with more than half a million meters
yet to be installed meaning increased operating costs down the
line.
Money recouped from wasteful use charges will come nowhere
near the cost of the metering and billing system. But in order not to
undermine its own proposal, the Report gives no cost comparison.
The British evidence is that most of the supposedly excessive
consumption is leak-related. Leak-related consumption can be
traced by means of district metering.
It is notable that the Report says Local Councils only manage to
collect about half of the water charges to commercial users
(2.4.22): businesses use water for private profit while the cost of
the water is paid by all.
Metering is a pointless expense unless it is used to charge for water.
The Report says that any initial generous consumption allowance
could be changed in the future (5.4.3) once metering is established.
Stopping waste is a cover argument to justify metering for
universal water charges in the future.
Conservation no evidence that metering is more effective
IW has claimed up to 10% reduced domestic consumption due to
metering. The evidence in Britain however, is that metering makes
little difference in average domestic consumption once leaks are
fixed (see below).
The Report says IW estimates a maximum reduction of 6% from
metering (2.3.8).
Domestic consumption in Ireland is about 41% of total
consumption. So domestic metering might reduce overall
consumption by a max of 2.5% (6% of 41%).
Meanwhile the Report admits that losses from the network are a
minimum 20% and rise to nearly 50% of treated water requiring
investment of between 5 and 13 billion (2.4.26). District metering
is more effective for conserving water because it can identify leaks
from the network and because it is much cheaper than the costs of
installation, maintenance and replacement of individual meters up
to 1.4 million of them
at an initial installation cost of at least 540 million.
We fully support water conservation, which would also reduce the
energy used for water treatment. While water harvesting is
mentioned in the Report, it was not included by FG-Labour in the
recently revised building regulations and could significantly reduce
the 5% of domestic water for outdoor use (p.60).
Nor does this Report mention the re-use of grey water (from hand-
basins, showers, baths) for toilet flushing, which accounts for
21.6% of domestic consumption (p.60).
The Report does not compare the cost of metering and billing, which
might reduce domestic consumption by 6%, to the cost of water
harvesting and use of grey water for flushing which together could
reduce domestic consumption by up to 25% (p.60).
The money proposed for metering and billing every year (operating
costs of IW) would bring far greater reductions in consumption if
spent on conservation measures. But conservation is not what this
is about.Water metering is only rational as preparation for universal
water charges at a later stage.
Allowances and waivers remember the bin charges
The Report proposes that the Commission for Energy Regulation
(CER) would be responsible for setting the size of the personal
allowance and for setting the charge rates. (5.2.5 and 5.2.6) An
allowances system needs metering to make sure people dont use
more but metering for excess-use costs more than it can recoup.
The Report however, reveals its true intentions when it says that
any generous initial allowance could be changed in the future
(5.4.3) to supposedly reduce consumption.
So the proposals for metered allowances to stop wasteful use are
actually cover for a perspective of reduced allowances and
increased charges in the future justified by the false argument
that charges reduce consumption.
The bin charges show what is likely to happen: allowances would
start high and fall steadily, while charges would start low and rise
steadily.
Even prior to deregulation of energy pricing, the CER has
consistently allowed gas and electricity charges to
rise above the rate of inflation and the Consumer Price Index. (see
Bonkers.ie) If PPP or other off-balancesheet private funding is to
be used to pay for water infrastructure and the private companies
want increased prices, there will be pressure to reduce allowances
and increase charges. CER wont stop this.
CER sets the very significant subsidies to private wind energy
producers paid from the PSO electricity /gas levy. The
renewables levy ensures profitability for the wind-farm operators
over and above the cost of producing wind energy. There is no
reason CER would not do the same for water / waste-water
treatment by private companies with future PPP contracts.
Waivers should not be believed: waivers for bin charges have
disappeared and it is not clear if any bin charge waivers will apply
for people with special needs (carers who use nappies and have
heavy bins, etc) if/when pay-by-weight is introduced.
Constitutional impediment to privatisation of water system
A commitment in the constitution not to privatise Irelands water
services would be welcome. We support a referendum for this. But it
should not become a substitute for demanding the abolition of
charges, the dismantling of IW and action to stop the imposition of
domestic water charges in any form.
Opposition to privatisation is based on support for access to water,
irrespective of income; and concerns
about price increases and where the profits would go. In the
context of the existing system, a constitutional commitment to
public ownership would have little real meaning unless it excluded
future PPPs or equivalent long-term contracts for maintenance and
operation of the system apart from initial construction.
There is already significant part-privatisation: NERI (2013) cites 66
water treatment plants as being PPP. All new water treatment plants
are DFBO (Design, Finance, Build, Operate) by private companies
on long-term contracts. The enquiries operation for IW has been
outsourced to Abtran a private multinational. So the Irish state,
through bypassing local Councils as the direct builders /
maintenance organisations, has already
part privatised the system by contracting out the construction and
operation of water / waste-water treatment plants to private
multinationals and guaranteed them a profitable revenue stream.
Operation of the network has not been contracted out because it
is not profitable and in need of big investment. But the existing 12-
year SLAs (Service Level Agreements), whereby the Councils do the
repair and maintenance work for IW, are unlikely to be renewed
when they come to an end. There will probably be a process of EU-
wide tendering for the contracts which would go to the lowest
bidder, rather like the way Sierra and K&N do most of the work on
the gas service that was previously done by Bord Gis employees.
Even if IW as the utility which had overall responsibility for water
services could not be privatised, the revenue it would get from
charging the state for domestic water services would be diverted to
private contractors through outsourcing. This needs to be
considered along with opposition to privatisation.
Charges pay for bank bailout and tax cuts for big business & the
rich
The underlying rationale for water charges is to raise revenue to
continue state-funding of the bank bailout while simultaneously tax-
cutting for big business and the rich.
By the end of 2014, IBRC (Anglo Irish and others) had been the
biggest financial drain on the State with a net cost of 36.1 billion.
Interest on bank debt alone is between 1 billion to 1.7 billion per
year (Julien Mercille, Broadsheet 5 Oct 2015; Irish Times 30-9-
2015). Successive FF and FG-Labour governments agreed to pay
the equivalent of 25% of GDP between 2007-2011 to bail out the
banks (Michael Taft).
The miniscule tax paid by the likes of Cerberus shows the tax
breaks that FF and FG give to big business.
The cost of water services is about 1 billion per year less than
the interest on the bank debt.
The decision by FF and FG-Labour that the Irish state should borrow
money to pay the speculator debts of the banks, and the interest on
those borrowings, is why there is a lack of investment to deal with
the crisis in the water infrastructure and why they want to impose
water charges. There should be a moratorium on payment of bank-
related debt and an audit of that debt with a view to repudiating it.
How to fund water infrastructure
Between 5 billion and 13 billion investment is required (2.4.26).
Tax the multinationals / tax wealth: see AAA PBPA budget
submission.
(THE FINANCIAL ASSETS ALONE of the Richest 10% of households
are now 37 Billion above peak boom level in 2006. Tactically, I
believe we should concentrate on this rather than raising the issue
of taxation of multi-nationals. The latter enables our enemies to
confuse people by raising the jobs issue. See IRISH SUPER_RICH
AWASH WITH MONEY elsewhere ON THIS BLOG-Paddy Healy)
Notes:
Do Water Meters Reduce Domestic Consumption? a summary of
available literature. 2011.Thus, on the UK evidence, the
true impact of metering needs to be seen in terms of better leak
detection, reduced peak consumption and little difference in average
consumption in exchange for higher cost and complexity in
customer billing and management.(p.4)
http://www.heednet.info/metering-defraHEEDnet.pdf
2.3.5 Irish Water presented consumption data to the Expert
Commission based on metered consumption to date, which
indicated that domestic consumption is relatively low in Ireland with
average consumption of 123 liters per capita (compared, for
example, to 140 liters per capita in the UK). This metered data also
indicated that 7% of households are using six times more water
than the average household, although Irish Water indicated this
level of consumption is likely to decline as customer-side leaks are
fixed.
2.3.8 In Ireland, the reduced domestic consumption due to charges
was originally projected to be 6%, but Irish Water
subsequently indicated that this estimate would have to be modified
downwards in the light of the introduction of a cap on charges.
2.4.22 the collection rate for commercial water charges was
much worse than for other charges with almost half of
water charges being unpaid across all local authorities. (2012:22)
5.2.2 A distinction must, however, be made between a right to
water for normal domestic and personal purposes and
wasteful usage. The former can reasonably be regarded as a public
service that should be funded out of taxation and which the State
should
provide for all citizens. Where water is used at a level above those
normal requirements, that principle is no longer applicable and the
user should pay for this use through tariffs.
5.2.3 Each household that is connected to the public water supply
receives an allowance of water and a corresponding allowance of
wastewater that corresponds to the accepted level of usage required
for domestic and personal needs without any direct charge being
levied. This allowance should be related to the number of persons
resident in the household and adjusted for special conditions.
5.4.3 . The allowance to households should be periodically
reviewed in an open and transparent way as further consumption
data is gathered and with a view to ensure that consumption levels
are maintained at levels that are aligned with best practice in water
conservation.
PROPOSAL OF SEAMUS HEALY TD TO HALT WATER

METERING RULED OUT OF ORDER
Seamus Healy TD put down an amendment to halt metering but it
has been ruled out of order for Committee Stage(see below). HE
will put it down again for Report Stage but we expect it to be ruled
out of order also. The so-called new politics is a sham. We have also
been told that any bill or motion or amendment which costs the
state money can only be put dowm by government. If proposed by
any opposition TD or party, such a motion will be ruled out of order!
Seamus had submitted several proposals to the Sub-Committee on
Dil Reform including a proposal to enable opposition deputies and
parties to table Bills which impact on state finances. His proposal
was rejected by the subcommittee majority including FF members.
Amendment to Water Services(Amendment) Bill 2016 from Seamus
Healy TD 087-2802199
Seamus Healy TD wishes to submit the following amendment:
Amendment
In section 2 (a) (ii) on line 16 after Irish Water insert:
shall suspend the installation of domestic water meters for
domestic dwellings on the passing of this Bill by the Oireachtas until
the Water Commission Report is laid before the Oireachtas and
Seamus Healy TD
An Roghchoiste um Thithiocht, Pleanil agus Rialtas itiuil
Teach Laighean
Baile tha Cliath 2
Teil: (01) 618 3481

R/phost : HPLG@oireachtas.ie
Select Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government
Leinster House
Dublin 2
Tel: (01) 618 3481

E-mail: HPLG@oireachtas.ie
05 July 2016
Deputy Seamus Healy

Dil ireann
Houses of the Oireachtas
Water Services (Amendment) Bill 2016

Committee Stage
Dear Deputy Healy
I must inform you that the amendment 3, tabled by you for

Committee Stage of the above Bill, must be ruled out of order as it
is not relevant to the provisions of the Bill as read a second time.
Yours sincerely
__________________
Maria Bailey T.D.
Chairman of the Select Committee
Labour Leader Howlin Said EU law takes precedence over

the Irish Constitution and legislation.
TDs are being asked to break EU law by legislating to
suspend water charges Howlin
John Downing Irish Independent
FORMER Public Spending Minister, Brendan Howlin, has said a law before the Dil to
suspend water charges effectively breaks EU law.
The Labour leader challenged Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald

following an assertion yesterday by the EU Environment
Commissioner that Ireland has no exemption on water charges.
Commissioner Karmenu Vella said Irelands earlier exemption ended
in July 2010 when the Fianna Fil-Green Party Coalition told
Brussels they were introducing water charges.
Mr Howlin, who was still a government minister two months ago,
said legislation currently going through the Dil breached EU law.
He said EU law takes precedence over the Irish Constitution and
legislation.
The Oireachtas has never before knowingly been asked to
contravene European law, the Labour leader said.
The Justice Minister, Frances Fitzgerald, said the Government was
acting in line with the law and the Constitution and the water
legislation will proceed.
She said the issue had been fully debated by Cabinet and a meeting
with the EU Commissioner was now scheduled.
Ms Fitzgerald rejected arguments by Anti-Austerity Alliance TD, Paul
Murphy, that the EU was seeking to set aside the Irish general
election outcome which was a vote against water charges.
MINISTERS HAD NOT PAID WATER CHARGES
BUT HAVE NOW CAPITULATED TO FG!!!
Minister Finian McGrath and soon to be elevated John Halligan have
not paid water charges-Non-Payers Vindicated-Why should anybody
continue to pay recent bills?
Many ill, old and vulnerable people were terrified into paying. There
should be a full refund and full abolition of charges
-
Dil Speech by Seamus Healy TD Demanding
Full Abolition of Water Charges 27/04/2016
Listen here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B11TATMMt6heZlpaXzFWbDJhQ3c/
view?pref=2&pli=1
I stood in the recent general election as a Right2Water and
Right2Change candidate and have been involved in the movement
since the initial stages. I congratulate all water campaigners around
the country who in the past two and a half or three years stood up
to be counted. Hundreds of thousands of people went out onto the
streets. Community campaigners, anti-metering protestors and
those who fought Irish Water on every street and estate and in
every village, town and city stood up to be counted. They also stood
up to the political parties. People power has won its first victory
against water charges. Those involved have forced the political
parties to retreat. The emerging deal a fudge is the first victory
as the Government and Fianna Fil have been forced to back down,
but they did not do so voluntarily. They did it under the pressure
exerted by people power. A word of caution to everyone involved in
the campaign: he or she should stay organised and continue to
resist metering. The political parties are treacherous and may
attempt to reintroduce water charges. Todays bad tempered rant by
the caretaker Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, may be an indication of
what is to come. If we stay organised and continue to resist
metering, however, water charges will be dead and buried.
As we have said from the beginning, water charges are unjust and
represent double taxation. They were the straw that broke the
camels back among people who had been devastated by austerity,
in particular low and middle income families. A motion on the Order
Paper that has been signed by 39 Deputies calls for the abolition of
water charges and the enshrining in the Constitution of the public
ownership of water infrastructure. It should be debated urgently,
but, unfortunately, Fianna Fil has agreed with Fine Gael to prevent
that from happening. I appeal to Fianna Fil, the Members of which
where elected on a pledge to end water charges, to allow the
motion to be tabled and voted on, as there is a majority in the
House in favour of abolishing water charges. Irish Water must be
abolished as it has been a disaster for ordinary people. We must
also ensure the many people who paid their water charges under
duress the elderly people who were afraid and people who were ill
and worried certainly did not pay voluntarily will have their money
refunded. It is important that the legislation underpinning domestic
water charges is repealed. I appeal to Fianna Fil and Fine Gael to
allow the motion on the Order Paper to be debated and voted on so
as to put water charges and Irish Water to bed once and for all.
First Victory for Water Charges Campaign, the

marchers, the meter resisters, the payment
boycotters
Huge Defeat for Alan Kelly and Labour
Suspesion or abolition of water charges is political,
economic ad environmental sabotage-environmental
treason Alan Kelly TD Dil Eireann 27/04/2016
Is what is happening now legal under EU directives? RTE
News at 6 27/04/2016Alan Kelly TD
http://wp.me/pKzXa-nC
BUT STAY ORGANISED-BEWARE OF EU
INTERVENTION
Continue to Resist Metering
Minister for the Environment Alan Kelly-Photograph: Gareth Chaney

Collins
Water charges Gone for duration of Government -unless EU

intervenes!
The commission is to report to an oireachtas committe. Unlike
Banking inquiry, government will not have a majority on this
CommitteeFF and oppsition will!
This committee will report to the Dail which will vote on whether the
suspension of water charges should be ended and charging for
water resumed. The government will not have a majority in the
Dail!
The trickery is to camouflage an agreement to suspend charges for
duration of government.
We must stay organised. The charges are still on the statute book.
They can be reactivated at any time. The threat of fines by EU could
be the trigger. The resistance to metering must continue.
Everybody who paid should get their money back. Many vulnerable
and/or old people were terrified of owing money and more terrified
of ending up in court. They were bullied into paying
New Vote on Taking Motion to Abolish Water
Charges
FG, FF, Labour Block Discussion. But the vote for discussion on the
motion increases from 39 to 49
26/04/2016
Question put: That the proposal for the adjournment tonight be
agreed to.
The Dil divided: T, 83; Nl, 49.
T Nl
Aylward, Bobby. Adams, Gerry.
Bailey, Maria. Barry, Mick.
Barrett, Sen. Boyd Barrett, Richard.
Brassil, John. Brady, John.
Breathnach, Declan. Broughan, Thomas P.
Breen, Pat. Buckley, Pat.
Brophy, Colm. Canney, Sen.
Browne, James. Collins, Joan.
Bruton, Richard. Collins, Michael.
Burke, Peter. Connolly, Catherine.
Burton, Joan. Coppinger, Ruth.
Butler, Mary. Cullinane, David.

Byrne, Catherine. Daly, Clare.
Byrne, Thomas. Doherty, Pearse.
Cahill, Jackie. Ferris, Martin.
Calleary, Dara. Funchion, Kathleen.
Cannon, Ciarn. Harty, Michael.
Carey, Joe. Healy, Seamus.
Casey, Pat. Healy-Rae, Danny.
Cassells, Shane. Healy-Rae, Michael.
Chambers, Jack. Kenny, Gino.
Chambers, Lisa. Kenny, Martin.
Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella. McGrath, Finian.
Coveney, Simon. McGrath, Mattie.
Cowen, Barry. Martin, Catherine.
Creed, Michael. Mitchell, Denise.
Curran, John. Moran, Kevin Boxer.
Daly, Jim. Munster, Imelda.
DArcy, Michael. Murphy, Catherine.
Deering, Pat. Murphy, Paul.
Donohoe, Paschal. Naughten, Denis.
Durkan, Bernard J. Nolan, Carol.
English, Damien. Broin, Eoin.
Farrell, Alan. Caolin, Caoimhghn.
Fitzgerald, Frances. Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
Fitzpatrick, Peter. Snodaigh, Aengus.

Flanagan, Charles. OBrien, Jonathan.
Harris, Simon. OReilly, Louise.
Haughey, Sen. OSullivan, Maureen.
Heydon, Martin. Pringle, Thomas.
Howlin, Brendan. Quinlivan, Maurice.
Kehoe, Paul. Ross, Shane.
Kelleher, Billy. Ryan, Eamon.
Kelly, Alan. Shortall, Risn.
Kenny, Enda. Smith, Brd.
Kyne, Sen. Stanley, Brian.
Lahart, John. Tibn, Peadar.
Lawless, James. Wallace, Mick.
MacSharry, Marc. Zappone, Katherine.
McConalogue, Charlie.
McEntee, Helen.
McGrath, Michael.
McLoughlin, Tony.
Madigan, Josepha.
Martin, Michel.
Mitchell OConnor, Mary.
Moynihan, Aindrias.
Moynihan, Michael.
Murphy OMahony, Margaret.
Murphy, Dara.
Murphy, Eoghan.
Murphy, Eugene.
Naughton, Hildegarde.
Neville, Tom.
Noonan, Michael.
OBrien, Darragh.
OCallaghan, Jim.
OConnell, Kate.
ODowd, Fergus.
OKeeffe, Kevin.
OLoughlin, Fiona.
ORourke, Frank.
OSullivan, Jan.
Penrose, Willie.
Phelan, John Paul.
Rabbitte, Anne.
Rock, Noel.
Ryan, Brendan.
Sherlock, Sean.
Smyth, Niamh.
Stanton, David.
Troy, Robert.
Varadkar, Leo.
Tellers: T, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Michael Moynihan; Nl,

Deputies Ruth Coppinger and Aengus Snodaigh.
Question declared carried.
HEALY RAE(M), Dr Harty and Mattie McGrath

Support Taoiseach in Refusing to allow
Motion for Abolition of Water Charges on Dil
Agenda
A motion to abolish water charges has been on the Dail agenda
since the first meeting of the new Dail, almost 8 weeks ago. It now
has 33 signatures.
Yesterday,20/04/2016, Taoiseach Kenny proposed an order of
business for the sitting which did not include the motion. Despite
many requests from Dil deputies to include the motion, Taoiseach
Kenny refused. Pro-abolition deputies then called on TDs to vote
against the order of business. Effectively those who voted T(Yes)
supported the Taoiseachs decision to exclude the abolition motion.
Those voting Nl(No) wanted to have the abolition motion debated.
FF, FG and Labour and a number of independents voted to support
Taoiseach Kennys exclusion of the abolition motion from the agenda
The official voting record below deserves study
Question put:
The Dil divided: T, 82; Nl, 39.
T Nl
Aylward, Bobby. Adams, Gerry.
Bailey, Maria. Barry, Mick.
Brassil, John. Boyd Barrett, Richard.
Breathnach, Declan. Brady, John.
Breen, Pat. Broughan, Thomas P.
Brophy, Colm. Buckley, Pat.
Browne, James. Connolly, Catherine.
Bruton, Richard. Coppinger, Ruth.
Burke, Peter. Cullinane, David.
Burton, Joan. Daly, Clare.
Butler, Mary. Doherty, Pearse.
Byrne, Catherine. Donnelly, Stephen S.
Byrne, Thomas. Ellis, Dessie.
Cahill, Jackie. Ferris, Martin.
Carey, Joe. Funchion, Kathleen.
Casey, Pat. Healy, Seamus.
Cassells, Shane. Kenny, Gino.
Chambers, Jack. Kenny, Martin.
Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella. McGrath, Finian.
Coveney, Simon. Martin, Catherine.
Cowen, Barry. Mitchell, Denise.
Creed, Michael. Munster, Imelda.

Positive Meeting Of Anti-Water
Charges Activists-Report Cllr.
Brendan Young
At a positive meeting of anti-water-charge
activists on April 16 (attendees below) a wide-
ranging
discussion took place and the following was
agreed:
1. With regard to the public discussion on the
formation of the next government, we are
opposed to the
movement against the water charge calling for
TDs to vote for a government of the parties
responsible for the austerity imposed to pay for
the bank bailout including the water charge;
2. Instead we support a call for all TDs who say,
or have said, they oppose the water charge to
vote to
immediately abolish the water charge and to
immediately abolish IW when a Bill to that effect
is put
before the Dail;
3. We are aware of discussions amongst anti-
water-charge TDs on drafting a Bill and look
forward to
seeing that draft Bill in the coming week;
4. We are in favour of such a Bill being a cross-
party Bill, rather than a Bill presented by any
one party;
5. We are in favour of all TDs who say they
oppose the water charges being asked to sign
this Bill;
6. While we support a Bill being put to the Dail,
we regard mass non-payment as key to
defeating the
water charge and are committed to promoting
the boycott of the charge;
7. We are in favour of a national demonstration
against the water charge and in support of a
Bill to
abolish the charge and abolish IW involving all
who oppose the water charge;
8. We are aware that a Bill will not be put to the
Dail until after the formation of the next
government;
we favor a demonstration before the formation
of the next government;
9. We are aware of discussions taking place,
amongst the TDs and parties involved in the
drafting of a
Bill, on the possibility of a national
demonstration and the possibility that these
TDs and parties
may agree to call a national demonstration; we
look forward to hearing the outcome of this
discussion in the coming week;
10. We agree to a press conference being called,
involving broad participation of anti water
charge TDs,
in response to IW payment figures when they
are announced in the coming week;
11. We support a visible mobilisation of all who
oppose the water charge at the Reclaim the
Vision of
1916 event on Sunday April 24 in Dublin
assemble in Merrion Sq at 14.00 and bring
banners; the
organisers ask anti-water charge groups to join
the parade behind the banner Irish Republic
ownership of Ireland
12. We are in favour of a national day of action
against the water charge in the near future
provisionally on Saturday April 30, depending
on the outcome of the discussion on calling a
national demonstration mentioned above and
will discuss this at our next meeting;
13. In the event that the incoming government
does not scrap the water charge, we support
open
discussion and democratic decision-making in
the next phase of the campaign;
14. we agree that there is a need for systematic
work on social media; we will discuss how best
to do this
at our next meeting;
15. We will meet again at 14.00 16.00 in the
Teachers Club, Parnell Sq on Sat April 23. This
meeting
is open to all who oppose the water charge and
we will publicise the meeting as much as
possible.
Attendance: Paddy Healy, Sean Heffernan,
Seamus McDonagh, John Lyons, Donall
OCeallaigh, Garrett
Banks, Joe Kelly, Enda Craig, James Quigley,
Shane Fitzgerald, Eddie Doyle, Joanne Pender,
Liz Wilders,
Mary ODonnell, John Meehan, Aaron Nolan,
Paul Murphy, Ciara Hendrick, Evelyn Campbell,
Pat Waine,
Brendan Young.
Report: Brendan Young. 18 April 2016.
New Treachery of FF-FG on Water
Charges
Water and Home taxes to be Merged?
Time to get Back on Streets!!!
From Irish Independent 11/04/16
Fianna Fil wants to suspend charges and abolish Irish Water in
favour of a national directorate, while Fine Gael insists that
payments for water must stay.
The Irish Independent has learned that figures in both parties are
now talking up the idea of amalgamating water charges and the
property tax into a so-called household package.
This would allow Fianna Fil to claim that charges have been
effectively scrapped, while still potentially satisfying EU rules,
according to a senior Fine Gael source. A high-ranking Fianna Fil
figure said the move could bridge the gap between the two
parties.
Sinn Fin on Water Charges Again

The sooner we all get back on the streets in
united opposition to water charges the
better. This crisis of rule of the rich is our
opportunity!
Why Does Sinn Fein not suspend the proposal
for a Commission until the water charges have
already been abolished? That would dispel all
confusion.
There has been, indeed, mischief-making in the media in relation to
the SF position on water charges. The papers were so intent on the
mischief that they failed to ask the really pertinent questions.
The fact that SF has and is proposing the abolition of water charges
in Dail motions is praiseworthy and should be supported. There is
no incompatability between that fact and the questions posed here
in view of the large Dil majority in favour of water charges. I fully
support the SF Dil motion for abolition, but I know that
FG+FF+Lab=100 deputies out of 158 will either prevent it being
discussed or vote it down.
Letter to Irish Independent from Gerry Adams,
Sinn Fin President, Sat 09/04/2016
Before reading the letter from Gerry Adams hereunder, consider the
following:
The policy re-iterated in the letter is that put forward by Sinn Fin in
the General Election. Since then 101 FG+FF+Lab TDs out of 158
have been elected to the Dail. Several other deputies are also in
favour of water charges. There are approximately 118 deputies
opposed to the abolition of water charges and 40 in favour of
abolition.
FF favours suspension of water charges for 5 years but is opposed
to abolition. Even if this suspension occurred the charges would still
be on the statute book and could be revived by government at any
time. It is at least possible that the FF position on water charges is
merely designed to facilitate FF entry into government. Having
entered government it is probable that FF would buckle to EU legal
threats and use these threats to renege on the suspension and
continue the charges .
The independent commission proposed by Sinn Fin is an
Oireachtas Commission which would report back to Government in
9 months. This means that the membership and terms of reference
of the commission would be set by the 100+ deputies who are
opposed to abolition of water charges.
The questions that arise from the Gerry Adams and Eoin OBroin
(further down) material on this matter in media are:
Why did experienced SF politicians not reply to reporters questions
on the terms of reference of the Commission in the following
manner Water Charges would have been already abolished, so the
question of their continuation would not arise ?
Why, instead of the above, the concentration on the protection
which terms of reference would give? After the election, it is now
clear that these terms of reference would be set by the large Dil
majority supporting the continuation of water charges?
Why does SF not suspend the proposal for an Oireachtas
Commission until there is a Dil majority for abolition?
Are the 4 steps in the Gerry Adams letter, which were fine during
the election campaign, now merely for use as a negotiating
document with other parties?
Letter to Irish Independent from Gerry Adams,
Sinn Fin President, Sat 09/04/2016
The Irish Independent claimed that Sinn Fins position in relation to
water charges is in tatters(April 6). This is not true. Sinn Fin has
consistently said that we would establish an independent
commission to examine the most appropriate model of public utility
to replace the flawed Irish Water model. Its not that hard to
understand. All commissions are given terms of reference. They
couldnt function other wise.
Allow me to set out the Sinn Fin position in clear terms for your
readers. There are four steps in the Sinn Fin position:
_ Abolish Water Charges to take place with immediate effect.
_ Abolish Irish Water-to be concluded within one year
_ Establish an independent commission on water services to examine
the most appropriate model of public utility to replace the flawed
Irish Water model -to report back within nine months
(An Phoblacht March 19,2016 We said we would establish an
independent Commission on Water Services to examine the most
appropriate public ownership model to replace Irish Water which
would report back to Government within nine months.)
Hold a referendum to enshrine the ownership of Irelands water as a

human resource in the Constitution
This is the position as presented to the people in the General
election. And is clearly set out in our policy document Water
Charges-A tax too far. There has been no change in this position
whatever.
What there has been is a certain amount of mischief making by
elements of the media
Sinn Fin has also committed to investing an additional 900m Euro
in water infrastructure over 5 years
Gerry Adams
Sinn Fin President
PUTTING FG IN GOVERNMENT MEANS WATER
CHARGES WILL CONTINUE

But Threat of New Election by FG is
Pure Bluff
FG threats to hold a new election rather than abolish or suspend
water charges is pure bluff.
If FG faced SF and the principled left calling for abolition and FF
calling for suspension in a general election, FG would not prevail .
What would the Labour Party do?
Irish Independent March 27 is reporting that the FG attempt to
assemble 15 others to support Kenny for Taoiseach is faltering
From Irish Independent March 26

Fine Gael sources directly involved in the
negotiations told the Irish
Independent if Fianna Fil demands the
abolition(really suspension-PH)
of charges then were heading into another
election.
Water charges are staying and Irish Water is
staying. That is not up for negotiation, said one
FG party source.
The view in the parliamentary party is so
robust on this from all sides and the party
leadership know that. Middle Ireland is with us
on this one.
The majority of Independent TDs who met with
Fine Gael this week have not listed water
charges on the agenda of items they want
urgently addressed.
Welcome Initiative By Right2Water

Unions and Community Pillar
Bill To abolish Water Charges to be proposed in Dil
full report below

While the lobbying of TDs to support the abolition Bill is progressing
we should be preparing a new national day of protest to back the
Bill possibly on the Saturday before it is to be debated. An attempt
may be made by FF-Fg-Lab to prevent the bill being debated. This
could be successful. The national day of action could be focused on
this if necessary.
By the way, to correct misleading comments on Facebook
Seamus Healy fully supported the Sinn Fein call to put
motion for abolition of water charges on the agenda for
today, March 22 when Dail first met. We voted with SF and
AAA-PBP against the Kenny proposal which excluded it. Seamus
Healy also voted for both Gerry Adams and Richard Boyd-Barret for
Taoiseach as both were signatories of Right2Change principles
The above is posted to correct misleading comments
UNIONS & COMMUNITY PILLAR MEET Monday March 22
Together we can get there
Today in Unite non political activists assembled from counties Louth,
Donegal, Carlow. Roscommon, Cork, Limerick, Kerry, Meath,
Wicklow, Kildare and of course Dublin. Once again people giving of
their own time and expenses with nothing in mind but to advance a
peoples cause.
The meeting decided that the Right2Water Unions would now draft
legislation to abolish Irish Water and charges and, also, to enshrine
public ownership of our water and sanitation in our Constitution.
The Unions will publish this legislation and then approach every TD
who sought election in opposition to charges and/or Irish Water. We
will look for the legislation to be supported not by party interests,
but by TDs voting in alphabetical order regardless of party. People
before party in opposition to these water charges was the
consensus!!!
It was also unanimously felt that the focus now needs to be on our
elected representatives working together and deliver abolition. They
have all benefited from the water campaign to get themselves
elected. It is now time to deliver. Lobbying and peaceful protesting
will be the order of the day until they do.
For the coming weeks this is where the focus will be.
The Unions and the communities have now begun debate and
discussion on how a peoples movement can arrive and formalise in
the mid to long term to CHANGE the face of Irish politics forever.
This dialogue will now intensify in coming months.
Once again, together we can do this.
-
Clarification???: Eoin O Broin(SF)

TD has now supplied an article in
An Phoblacht, March 19
http://www.anphoblacht.com/conte
nts/25839
It contains no clarification or explanation of his remarks in an
interview in Irish Times carried below.
Sinn Fin cant say who would sit

on water commission-Irish
Independent
Irish Independent Published 19/03/2016 | 02:30 Mark
Condren
Sinn Fin cannot say who would sit on a commission it wants to set
up to decide the fate of Irish Water.
The party has backed away from its pre-election promise to
immediately set about abolishing the utility and now wants to set up
a committee to assess how to maintain the water network.If that
group was to recommend the retention of Irish Water, then Sinn
Fin would abide by that.
Our position is we would have a commission on Irish Water. The
idea of the commission would be to come up with a utility that could
deliver a proper water service.
Wed be talking about investing 900m extra into the water
services, said newly elected TD for Limerick Maurice Quinlivan.
However, when asked by the Irish Independent who would sit on the
commission, Mr Quinlivan replied: Youre talking hypothetical about
a commission.
Independent Commission on WaterServices set up by Dil

Majority????
What on Earth is SF doing on water Charges? SF must clarify
this urgently
It is clear from the responses by Eoin Broin (SF) TD below that
the Commission is to report back in NINE MONTHS TIME BEFORE
THE ABOLITION OF WATER CHARGES!!!
The Commission is to be set up by the Dil which means its
composition and terms of reference would be determined by FF, FG
and Labour.
Policy Point on SinnFein Website
Establish an independent Commission on Water Services to
examine the most appropriate public ownership model to
report back to Government within NINE MONTHS
Eoin OBroiN SF TD-Irish Times
Thats why actually we think the best thing to do is to form that
independent commission on water services to design the best
possible model of public ownership. On whether Sinn
Fins commission could recommend the retention of the existing
system, Mr Broin said: I would be very surprised if any body of
experts came back saying Irish Water is the best possible model. I
dont think that scenario is likely but I think that if you set up an
independent commission and you ask it to look at the best model of
public ownership then I do think there is a responsibility to accept
its recommendations when it does come back.
Dil Report-Keeping Water Charges Off the Dil AgendaFF,

FG, Labour,GP(1) and some independents voted in Dail for an Order
of Business which EXCLUDES ABOLITION OF WATER CHARGES as
an item from Dail Agenda when House resumes on March 22
T 100 Nl 32
T : FF, FG, Lab, Gp(1) Mattie Mcgrath, Sean Canney, Michael
Fitzmaurice, Denis Naughten, Maureen O SullivanNl; SF 23,
Seamus Healy, Ruth Coppinger, and 7 other left independentsIt was
clear that the Taoiseach FG, FF And Lab were determined to keep
water charges off the agenda. There was a TWO HOUR debate
Nobody could have been under any illusion about what was at
stake.
The Taoiseach had the right under standing orders to agree to a
Sinn Fin amemndment to the order of business to allow the SF
motion on Water Charges be included on order paper but he
explicitly refused.
When SF sought to amend the Taoiseachs proposal to have the
water charges included, the Ceann Comhairle ruled the amendment
out of order.
It was clear that the only way to have the charges included was to
vote against the motion and to send it back to the Taoiseach for
amendment
That is why all the left TDs and Sinn Fin voted against the
Taoiseachs motion.Just look at the independents who voted for
Kennys motion!
Victory Possible for Right2Water,

But Dont Take it for Granted!Let us
redouble our Efforts.Explain to
those Paying that they may not get
their money back following
abolition or suspension of
Charges
March 2
Cabinet blocks Irish Water

complaints
probe by Ombudsman
Caroline ODoherty
The Ombudsman has questioned
why the Government declined to
allow his office investigate
complaints against Irish Water and
says the move has left the utilitys
customers without any independent
grievance mechanism.
Ombudsman Peter Tyndall, who examines complaints about public
bodies, claims Irish Water was needlessly removed from his remit
when the company took over water supply and sewerage services
from local councils over which he does have jurisdiction.
He says the excuse that Irish Water is a now standalone company
does not wash with him, as ombudsmen in other countries have
retained powers to investigate water services, even when the
ownership or management structure changed.
And he says the decision is particularly hard to stand over
considering that Irish Water remains on the States books.
Mr Tyndall says the Commission for Energy Regulation, which has

regulatory control over Irish Water, cannot properly investigate the
company.
People who had complaints about Irish Water, just at the point
when complaints were starting to grow, had nowhere to go, he
said.
They can go to the regulator but best practice is that complaints
should sit with an independent body, not with the regulator, because
some of the things that people are complaining about are what the
regulator is telling Irish Water to do.
So the notion of it being independent just doesnt work.
Burton astonished at unions in

anti-water-charge brigade
Irish Independent PUBLISHED30/10/2015
Tnaiste Joan Burton has lashed out at trade unions who she says
dont consider upgrading the countrys water system to be a priority.
The Labour Party leader said she finds it astonishing that some
unions are part of the anti-water charge movement, given the scale
of problems.
Its very odd to have elements of the trade union movement, who
appear to be reluctant to accept the idea that water, while
absolutely a right, actually has to be funded and paid for, Ms
Burton said.
She was responding to questions about the new Right2Change
voting pact, which has the backing of six trade unions including
Unite, Mandate, the Communications Workers Union and the
Technical Engineering and Electrical Union.
Last night, the newly formed Social Democrats declined to join the
movement, which wants left-wing parties and independent election
candidates to agree on a vote-transfer pact.
Right2Change has set out a number of policy principles around
health, housing, jobs and the abolition of water charges.
Sinn Fin has already signed up but many other left-wing politicians
have said that while they back the idea they will not be asking their
voters to transfer to Gerry Adamss party.
In a letter to the leaders of Right2Change, the Social Democrats
said that while they commend the group for a proposal built on
sound principles, they wanted to remain independent heading into
their first General Election.
While we wholly support the principles of Equality, Democracy and
Justice which underline the document, we do have a concern that
the substance of the entire document amounts to a manifesto.
Given that we intend to produce our own manifesto, it would not
be appropriate for us to sign up to that of another group, they said.
Asked if the Labour Party would miss the support of the union
movement, Ms Burton said the party still had an enormous amount
of support in the trade unions but some unions had made a
political choice.
She said that the six unions needed to realise that water services
were in need of repair.
We need to do it. We have to do it for ourselves, we have to do it
for industry, agriculture and for tourism, she said.
Weve had occasions when Dublin has pretty much run out of
water.
Weve had part of the country where weve had boil water notices
and weve had more than 40 spots around the country where we
are dumping waste and effluent into rivers, lakes and beaches.
She added: Im a bit astonished really that trade unions wouldnt
consider addressing those issues to be a priority.
The Tnaiste said she understood why some politicians were not
backing the Right2Change voting pact, adding that she was not
surprised that certain groups and parties would not wish to embrace
Sinn Fin.
DEFEND THE JOBSTOWN 27 March Tomorrow Sept 19

Jobstown Not Guilty has called for a major protest TOMORROW
Saturday at 1pm at Central Bank. It will march from there to the
CCJ.
After Hugely Successful Right2Water Major

National Demonstration, LET US BUILD ON
THIS SUCCESS!!!
AFTER TEEU Affiliates to RIGHT2Water, Press YOUR Union to
Affiliate!
Motion 41 Passed at ICTU Biennial Delegate Conference
2015 by a Huge Majority
That the Waterford Council of Trade Unions calls on Conference to
reject imposition of water charges on the Irish people and call for a
Constitutional Amendment that ensures water remains in the
ownership of the Irish people.
Waterford Council of Trade Unions
Proposer : Waterford Council of Trade Unions
TEEU, Irelands largest craft union (40,000 members) has now
affiliated to Right2Water
It joins UNITE, CPSU, CWU, OPATSI and MANDATE in support of the
abolition of water charges.
SIPTU and IMPACT are increasingly isolated.
ICTU BDC has now passed a motion calling on government to
abolish water charges.
Is it not time that all unions affiliated to Right2Water?
Please put up motions to your executives calling on them to affiliate
without delay. Quote the motion passed at ICTU. I will circulate this
shortly.
TUI, ASTI, INTO,IFUT, INMO, PSEU, AHCPS, UCATT should all
affiliate now!!!!
Members of Siptu and IMPACT should organise to change their
unions policy
Seamus Healy TD Welcomes TEEU Support for Right2Water

Busses from Clonmel and Carrick-On-Suir will be going to the
protest march in Dublin on Saturday Next
Telephone WUA Office 052-6121883 for booking and further
Information
I welcome the huge boost given to the campaign to abolish water
charges by the decision of
TEEU Trade Union, Irelands giant craft union, 40,000 strong, to
affiliate to Right2Water
Let us now give the campaign another big boost by joining the
protest march on Saturday next in Dublin
Seamus Healy TD 087-2802199
Water Charges And Taxation-Right2Water Should Change the
Formulation to Avoid Confusion and Misrepresentation
The statement Water Services should be funded by progressive
general taxation is technically correct. But it is open to be
misrepresented as an attempt to place the burden on the middle
class. This is being done currently by Leo Veradkar. It will be
trumpeted in every constituency in the general election. In Ireland
all those living in private rather than local authority estates and/or
have white-collar occupations are regarded (wrongly) as middle
class. They are a very numerous cohort and the fight for their
political support is very important to the left. Already many people
from this background support left-wing TDs and councillors. (As a
lifelong trade union rep of teachers and public servants, I am
particularly conscious of this)
The problem with Water Services should be funded by progressive
general taxation is that it does not express the gross inequity in
the distribution of wealth and in the incidence of taxation in Ireland.
I try to deal with this in my blog,
Irish Super-Rich Awash With Money http://wp.me/pKzXa-n4
Instead I think the formulation in documents and speeches should
be Water Services Should be Funded by taxing the incomes and
assets of the super-rich
The formulation Water Services should be funded by progressive
general taxation should be dropped.
When canvassing doors, I often ask What do you think is the
annual income of each of the top 10,000 Irish people
I commonly get the reply: About 200,000 euro like all the
ministers
The reality is 595,000 Euro (over half a million and there are almost
no public servants or Ministers in it-all private sector). Public
perception is distorted by biased media coverage.
I recommend the following reply to Presenters Question: So you
intend to load the cost of upgrading Irish water on the middle
classes
Answer: No, we wish to prevent extra taxation being imposed on
those on low and middle incomes. No Water charges, no Home Tax
We will directly tax the super rich. The top 10,000 Iris People have
incomes of 595,00 per year each, a total of 5.95 billion. Net
Financial assets-investments and bank deposits of the very rich
Irish have gone up by 90 billion since the crash. There is plenty
surplus money there to fund investment in water servicesPaddy
UPDATE:SUPER-RICH IRISH AWASH WITH MONEY!-UPDATE
Aug 19,2015 Read Full Blog http://wp.me/pKzXa-n4
Brian Gould(Cork) Arrested Yet Again For Resisting Water-

Metering. Good on you Brian!
Weve told residents that if they want help, were more than willing
to give it to them. We wont do it for them though.
Were willing to stand with them, not stand for them. They
themselves have to be willing to take a stand.-Brian Gould
Water charges protester defiant at third arrest
Irish Examiner Wednesday, August 19, 2015

by Joe Leogue
A water charges protester arrested three times since last Friday has
vowed to continue his resistance to the installation of water meters.
Brian Gould, aged 64, was yesterday arrested at a protest at the
Ard Cashel estate in Watergrasshill, Co Cork having been detained
on Monday at a demonstration in the same residential area.
Mr Gould was also arrested at a protest in Brooklodge in nearby
Glanmire last Friday.
Mr Gould appeared in Mallow District Court yesterday and was
released on bail.
He said afterwards that, as part of his bail conditions, he had been
ordered not to attend any further water meter installations in
Watergrasshill.
Mr Gould said that he was yesterday arrested for grabbing
equipment from an Irish Water worker, but said that it was an
instinctive reaction after the material was passed over his head
from behind.
His arrest on Monday, Mr Gould said, came after he stepped on a
stopcock.
He also confirmed that he is not a resident of either the Ard Cashel
or Brooklodge estates.
Over the last six or seven months weve been going to various
estates in Cork City and county to park meetings, said Mr Gould.
Weve been giving information and leaflets to residents on the
water charges, meters and smart meters.
Weve told residents that if they want help, were more than willing
to give it to them. We wont do it for them though.
Were willing to stand with them, not stand for them. They
themselves have to be willing to take a stand.
Mr Gould said that, as a result of his involvement, he gets calls from
residents who are seeking help in speaking with garda and Irish
Water workers.
I have gained experience in dealing with the garda and Irish Water
that people dont have, he said.
Last week, a spokesperson said Irish Water would resume works in
estates where workers had been refused access by residents.
This work will be rescheduled in due course to enable works to be
carried out in a safe manner, the spokesperson said. Meter
installations are continuing in the south-west region. To date in
excess of 735,000 meters have been installed nationwide and over
90,000 in the south-west region.
Coleman Sheehy, brother of FG donor, was
appointed to the Irish Water Board in
November 2013.The part-time position
carries an annual salary of 15,000 Euro. Mr.
Sheehy is involved in property investment
and development and commenced
employment with Sherry Fitzgerald Estate
Agents. What qualifications has he to run a
water company. How was he selected?
Water bills could rise by 50pc and 100 grant facing axe as
EU report hits home-Irish Independent
Irish independent Paul Melia
PUBLISHED01/08/2015 | 02:30
Water bills could rise by as much as 50pc if the Coalition insists on
keeping Irish Waters loans off the national balance sheet.
The 100 water conservation grant and the pricing cap are also in
the firing line, if the Coalition wants the company to pass Eurostats
market corporation test.
This would result in 70pc of customers, or almost 950,000
households, being hit with a higher charge as they would have been
expected to pay no more than the maximum bill of 260 per year.
Scrapping the 100 grant to every householder who registers with
Irish Water will also result in higher charges.
European agency Eurostat earlier this week ruled Irish Water did not
pass a crucial test because more than 50pc of revenues came from
Government.
It also found the so-called water conservation grant should be
treated as a payment to Irish Water, as it was clearly designed to
offset bills.
Failure to pass the market corporation test means that Irish Waters
borrowings will be added to the national debt.
The Government has committed to not changing the charging
structure, including the cap, until at least 2019.
Subsidies
It has also said the 100 grant will be paid annually, but the
Eurostat decision means that some subsidies will have to be
withdrawn for Irish Water to qualify as a standalone entity.
ESRI economist Dr Edgar Morgenroth said that the minimum the
Government needed to do was scrap the 100 grant.
Its hard to argue the 100 water conservation grant is anything
other than a rebate to Irish Water. To meet the Eurostat criteria I
expect that at the minimum the government would have to get rid
of the untargeted 100 subsidy.
The true cost of providing water and wastewater is probably 500
to 600. We now have (a charge of) 260, less the 100, and were
not even close to 50pc.
New data published by the Central Statistics Office (CSO) also
shows how the Government is heavily subsidising the cost of
treating water.
It says that households are currently being charged 3.70 per 1,000
litres of drinking water and wastewater, but that the real cost is
5.42.
The prices are being kept low because the Government not only
subsidises household bills, but also pays another 1.72 per 1,000
litres to cover the cost of child allowances and the cap.
Removing these subsidies would add around 46pc to bills.
The CSO, Irish Water, Eurostat and the Government have all refused
to release redacted figures in the Eurostat ruling, arguing they are
commercially sensitive.
But data released by the CSO shows the extent Irish Water relies on
the State.
The Government will this year provide Irish Water with 400m to
offset treatment costs and keep charges low. This will increase to
479m next year.
Some 60m is being provided from taxation to pay for the free
allowance of 21,000 litres per child. Another 129m is being paid to
keep the maximum charge at 260 per two-adult household and
160 for a one-adult home.
A product subsidy of 211m is paid to offset treatment costs.
These subsidies exclude the water grant, which costs 130m.
Dr Morgenroth said if 51pc of total funding had to come from direct
charges to customers, it gave the Government very little room for
manoeuvre.
Prices are not set in relation to costs at all, theyre set politically. It
cant be like that if you want a market operation firm, he said,
adding that payment rates would have to improve.
Irish Independent
Seamus Healy TD
TRIP TO TIPP PT 2 NATIONAL PROTEST AGAINST WATER
CHARGES
Nenagh, Saturday August 8
Step up the Campaign Against Water Charges By Protesting in
Nenagh on August 8
Nenagh is the home town of Minister Alan Kelly
Assembling at Nenagh Railway Station@2pm
Free parking on Saturdays in Nenagh
Coaches can park at the railway station
Government and Minister Kelly Must Withdraw the Charges
NOW!
57% Refuse to Pay Water Charges!
Statement By Seamus Healy TD 087-4183732
Well over half of those billed have not paid the water charge. This
shows that the majority of the Irish people are opposed to these
charges and the Government and Minister Kelly should now
withdraw the charges. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the
biggest civil society organisation in Ireland, has voted
overwhelmingly against the imposition of these charges.
Irish people already pay for water through general taxation
including VAT. The majority are refusing to pay a second time.
The Fine Gael/Labour Government gave 80 million Euro in tax relief
in the last budget to over 100,000 people who earn 180,000Euro
per year each. But it is persisting with a charge that amounts to
double taxation of households including very poor households.
The widespread refusal to pay the first water bill should encourage
many more to refuse to pay the second bill.
As no penalties take effect before the next general election, people
can continue to refuse to pay and can vote out the present
government and elect candidates committed to abolishing the
charges in the election.
I will continue to refuse to pay
The mass refusal to pay is a huge boost to the Anti-Water Charges
Campaign which will be holding a mass march in Dublin on August
29.
Let us keep up the pressure!
Seamus Healy TD 087-2802199
IMPACT/SIPTU Austerity Collaborators Fail To UNDERMINE
ANTI-WATER CHARGES MOTION AT ICTU BDC
A motion to oppose water charges unconditionally was passed at the
ICTU Biennial Delegate Congress after an amendment from IMPACT
And SIPTU which agreed the principle of charging domestic
households for water was defeated by 9 votes.
Well done to outgoing President of ICTU and Mandate General
Secretary, John Douglas
Well done to Waterford Trades Council who proposed the motion
Well Done to the 5 Right to Water Unions-MANDATE,UNITE, CPSU,
CWU, OPATSI
Well done to Northern Unions who were aware.
SIPTU and IMPACT are well aware that once water becomes a
saleable commodity inder EU law, it is only a matter of time until
the charges increase and the service is privatised.
This is what happened with the bin service.
-
Abolition of Water Charges Must be a Red Line Issue for
Participation in Government!
Submission to Right 2 Water Unions by Workers and
Unemployed Action Including Pledge to Be Signed by General
Election Candidates to be Endorsed by Right2Water Unions
WUA Submission
Workers and Unemployed Action is a nationally registered political
party. Seamus Healy TD will be contesting the next General
Election on behalf of WUA.
A small extract from our constitution and rules encapsulates the
political position of the party:
1. With James Connolly, Workers and Unemployed Action is
committed to achieving Irish Unity, Independence and Socialism. It
is opposed to any intrusion on the sovereignty of the Irish people.
2 WUA supports and defends Irish military neutrality
3 WUA supports the struggles of workers, unemployed and oppressed
people all over the world.
4 It is dedicated to advancing the political reorganisation of the
working class on an All-Ireland basis in a united all-Ireland party of
workers.
5 It is opposed to coalition or collaboration with conservative parties
in Government or other public authorities as a matter of principle.
(This means that WUA will not be participating in a coalition
government with FF, FG, Renua)
Full constitution and rules can be viewed on our website and by
clicking here
https://wuag.wordpress.com/about/constitution-and-rules/
WATER CHARGES
WUA is strongly in favour of the abolition of domestic charges and
the recognition of access to free domestic water as a human right.
We participated in the previous campaign which succeeded in
abolishing water charges and also in campaigns against bin taxes
and local property tax.
We therefore welcome the initiative of the Right2Water unions in
attempting to use the next election as one means of bringing about
abolition of the charges.
Campaigns for non-payment by those in a position not to pay and
mass protests against government policy and the installation of
water meters in residential areas must continue in parallel with this
electoral initiative.
We have no difficulty endorsing the content of the 5-union policy
document though WUA has strongly held additional political
positions and principles.
In addition to WUA, there will be several political parties and
individuals including individual Dail deputies and senators,
committing themselves to abolition of domestic water charges in the
general election.
Inevitably these will have differences on fundamental issues
including participation or non-participation in government with other
parties.
But we think it important that all candidates endorsed by
Right2Water regard abolition of domestic water charges as a red
line issue for participation in government or remaining in
government. Otherwise, should candidates endorsed by
Right2Water fail to win an overall majority in the General Election,
the elected deputies would have no further obligation to
campaigners against the charges. They could participate in or
support a government which continued the charges WITHOUT
BREAKING THE PLEDGE if there are not additions to the current 5-
union document ON WATER CHARGES. This would be grossly
unfair to activists who campaigned for such candidates or
who recommended votes for them.
Irish Water PLC and domestic water charges will be
abolished within the first 100 days of a Government
endorsing this policy.-Right2Water Unions Document
WUA endorses this pledge.
However, since the fundamental duty of a Right2Water campaign is
to ensure, as far as possible, the abolition of the charges we think
that the following should be added to the above:
Suggested Water Charges Pledge to Be Presented for
Signature to Candidates in the coming General Election who
seek endorsement by Right2Water Campaign
I am unconditionally in favour of the abolition of domestic Water
Charges and I will vote for such abolition in Dil Eireann at the first
opportunity.
I shall not participate in or support the formation of any
government which is not formally committed in its programme for
government to the abolition of domestic water charges within 100
days of taking office.
I shall not remain in or continue to support any government which
fails to fully abolish domestic water charges within 100 days of
taking office.
In signing this pledge I am fully aware that the current FG-Lab
government has surrendered the Irish Exemption from The EU
Water Framework Directive (article 9.4) which legally absolved
Ireland and Ireland alone from the requirement to charge for
domestic water.
Conclusion
UNITY TO REMOVE WATER CHARGES!
It is important that opportunist candidates be prevented from
climbing on an anti-water charges band wagon in order to gain
election only to betray later. The enhanced pledge above minimises
the chances of this occurrence and maximises the chances that
water charges will be abolished. WUA strongly recommends the
enhanced pledge above.
Mass Peaceful Street protest during

Labour Party Conference
Support Killarney Right2Water Feb 28!!!!
KillarneyToday.com Exclusive
A MAJOR national protest is being planned for the streets of
Killarney to coincide with the staging of the annual conference of
the Labour Party in the town later this month, KillarneyToday.com
can reveal.
The protest rally, to voice opposition to water charges and the
austerity regime, is being organised for Saturday, February 28 by
Killarney Right2Water campaigners and it is likely to attract at least
several hundred people from all parts of the country.
The Labour conference, which will be attended by several cabinet
ministers and party leader Joan Burton, will be held in the INEC
from February 27 to March 1.
Dec 1
IMPACT TRADE UNION FORBIDS BRANCHES FROM
CAMPAIGNING AGAINST WATER CHARGES
Letter From Shay Coady, General Secretary
You will be aware that this matter was debated at the IMPACT
Conference in May. Motions calling for the abolition of water charges
or supporting a campaign of opposition to water charges were not
endorsed by Conference. The policy position adopted at Conference
is the following motion;
This Conference calls on IMPACT to support a Trade Union national
campaign of opposition to the introduction of water charges for
households unless the Government commits to retaining the service
in public ownership.
The Action on Motions adopted by the CEC and circulated to all
branches noted that the Water Services No. 2 Act 2013 provides
that Irish Water and its assets will remain in State ownership. The
Act prohibits Irish Waters board, the Minister for the Environment
or the Minister for Finance from selling their company shares. You
will be are that the Minister recently announced further protections
relating to the requirement for a plebiscite if this were to change.
This will require legislation.
In these circumstances IMPACT is not participating in or supporting
the December demonstration and it would be contrary to policy as
determined by Conference for any IMPACT Branch to sign up to
this campaign. You are aware that, under rule, the conference is the
governing body of the union. Furthermore, under rule, branches are
subject to the overriding authority of the CEC.
IMPACT was involved in the negotiation of the service level
agreements between Irish Water and local authorities. We represent
the local authority staff who now deliver that service to Irish Water.
Thes e workers continue to be employed under the same local
authority terms and conditions. We are also organising members in
Irish Water and we have secured a recognition agreement for
IMPACT from the company. I am copying this correspondence to the
IMPACT Officials involved in the water sector as well as the
President.
Shay
Nov 30
Clonmel March bigger than ever to-day
Over 2000 marched
Two Clonmel Busses now filled for Dec 10 to Dublin
Clonmel March against Water Charges Today even Bigger!

Well Over 2000 Marched
Technical Engineering and Electrical Union
representing 40,000 Irish craft workers have called
for the abolition of Water Charges at their national
Conference
TEEU now joins MANDATE, UNITE, CWU, CPSU, OPATSI in
campaigning for abolition.
But SIPTU still supports the principal of charging
households for water. This makes water a tradeable
commodity rather than a public service. Refundable tax
credits do not change this.
David Begg, General secretary of ICTU said on Saturday
that the government package was acceptable
ICTU had supported water charges in its pre-budget
submission.
We must assume that UNIONS we have not heard from
support the ICTU position. These include TUI, IMPACT,
INTO, ASTI, PSEU, AHCS, IFUT, etc
Activist must step up the pessure in these unions for the
abolition of water charges
Meanwhile, members of the Technical Engineering and
Electrical Union (TEEU) have called on the Government to
abolish planned water charges with immediate effect.
Delegates at the unions biennial conference in Kilkenny
backed calls for it to campaign in support of the abolition
of the plan.-(Irish Times)
Nov 20
Households May Pay More-Labour Minister
Labour Party Minister White Admits Households May have
to pay more for water even before the General Election
There is a risk, he said on RTE, that the EU may find that
the arrangements may not meet the EU requirements to
allow Irish Water to borrow off balance sheet (50% of
funding of the company coming from charges to
households and businesses)
The reason for this is that the 100 Euro allowance may be
regarded as illegal state aid to Irish Water.
The reason the 100 Euro is being paid to all households
including those with private pumps who are not
customers of Irish Water is in order to pretend that the
100 Euro it is not a form of state aid to the Company,
Irish Water!
Mr White said the Government has no plan B.
The government is committed to retaining Irish Water as a
company trading in water. Minister Kelly says that it was
not a mistake to set up Irish Water.
THE ONLY SOLUTIONS OPEN TO GOVERNMENT IN
THAT CONTEXT ARE:
1 Abolish or seriously reduce the 100 Euro allowance
2 Increase the charges
3 A bit of both
In either case, this means that people will pay
more!
THE ONLY SOLUTION FOR HOUSEHOLDS IS THE
ABOLITION OF WATER CHARGES
Update Nov 17
Government to introduce loss leader to lure people into
paying. After the general election the charges will rise. A
cap on charges can be removed by next government by
a simple majority. Allowances can be frozen or reduced.
Once water becomes a commodity through charging
households its treatment under EU law changes
fundamentally. Movement to full cost recovery is
inevitable over time.
Joan Burton took 1008 Euro per year in child benefit from
a household with 4 children including households of the
unemployed. She cut rent allowances and fuel allowances.
Now she is about to impose a water charge which will
inevitably rise.
Update Nov 14
Will SIPTU Jack OConnor Allow Government Take
Water Charges From Workers Pay?
The government may now move to have water charges
deducted from pay,pensions and social welfare.
SIPTU could stop this as the Labour Party is now almost
completely dependent on SIPTU for its very survival.
UNITE THE UNION has already dissafiliated from the
Labour Party but SIPTU remains part of the Labour Party.
SIPTU members should call on Jack OConnor to issue a
statement saying that such a move will not be tolerated.
DISCUSSION
ICTU Accepted The Principle of Charging for Water
in Budget Submission
http://www.ictu.ie/press/2014/07/17/congress-pre-
budget-submission/
Congresss proposals on water charges represent a
compromise position between the need to raise additional
government revenue and the need to protect low and
middle income households-
If water charges are to be introduced, the already
announced free allowance will have to be supplemented
by a system of water credits or cash transfers for lower
and middle income earnersIf
Congresss proposals come into conflict with EU state aid
rules , then it is Congresss position that Irish Water
should exist as a public authority
John Douglas(Mandate), Current President of ICTU and
Jimmy Kelly(UNITE) are leaders of the campaign to
abolish water charges and CWU, OPATSI, CPSU are
supporting the demonstrations. Other members of the
General Purposes Committee of ICTU are Shay Cody
(IMPACT ), Sheila Nunan (INTO), Patricia King (SIPTU),
Joe OFlynn (SIPTU), Jack O Connor (SIPTU)
Almost all general secretaries of trade unions are on the
Executive Council of ICTU
The statement: -If Congresss proposals come into
conflict with EU state aid rules , then it is Congresss
position that Irish Water should exist as a public
authority is merely a washing of hands or tail covering
exercise. ICTU and SIPTU have substantial research
departments.
WATER MUST BE RESTORED AS A PUBLIC GOOD NOT
A COMMODITY! REPEAL THE WATER SERVICES ACT
EU Illegal State aid rules Will Ensure that Water
Charges Will rise once introduced
Full Rebate to all households to pay for all
necessary water in the Form of a Refundable tax
credit
will be excluded- SIPTU Jack OConnor knows this.
ONLY SOLUTION IS TO REPEAL The Water Services
ACT and restore water as a public good not a
commodity
Tax the Super-Rich for Extra Investment- See
Super-Rich Awash With Money on
paddyhealywordpress.com
Technically the money paid by households and businesses
must be more than 50% of supply and production costs in
order for Irish Water to be allowed by the EU to borrow off
balance sheet. Borrowing off balance sheet simply means
that households and businesses will pay the interest on
borrowings and repay the capital in water charges over
time.
Dr Tom McDonnell (NERI) has said: At the moment it
appears that the funding model for 2015 is 533 million
from the Local Government Fund, 305 million from
domestic water charges and 230 million from non-
domestic (mainly commercial) water charges This means
that technically the government must collect 305 million
Euro from households next year.
Following the huge countrywide protests and the political
damage to FG and Lab, government is now now asking
the EU to allow them to charge less than the 305 million
until after the General Election. On behalf of the state
they will make committments which bind the next
government to allow charges to rise until the 50% figure
is exceeded . Ultimately, the intention is to recover all
costs from households and businesses.
The key step required to make water a commodity rather
than a public good under EU law is to begin charging
households for it even if the initial cost is low for a
temporary period and there are significant allowances and
tax credits.
Unless the attempt to introduce charges on
households is defeated now, the charges will rise
over time to a level comparable with electricity bills.
The charges will, of course, be in addition to the money
we are already paying in direct and indirect taxes for
water as the government subvention to Irish water will be
either frozen or reduced over time as the charges rise.
The net effect of the entire operation is to switch taxation
from the super-rich to those on low and middle incomes.
Already the poorest 10% pay a higher proportion of their
income in tax than the richest 10% when both direct and
indirect taxes(VAT etc) are taken into account. (See my
post on this blog: Poorest Pay Most Tax)
Governments wiggle-room on water
charges limited
ANALYSIS
Cliff Taylor Irish TIMES OCT 31
The Government has limited room for manoeuvre in cutting water
charges to consumers, if it wants to keep the costs of Irish Water
off the State balance sheet. This is the crux of the problem it faces
as it aims to defuse public anger at the charges.
Giving money back to consumers via tax relief and household
benefits packages may, however, be the way to lower the costs
while staying within the rules.
An analysis of the published information on what Irish Water will
spend and where it will raise its money shows it needs to raise
significant revenue from the public to stay within the rules. If it
does not do so, officials have calculated that more than 800 million
will be added to borrowing next year, cutting Irelands ability to
meet EU deficit targets.
Juggling the deficit
The whole structure of Irish Water was established so the bulk of
State funding would not be counted in the annual exchequer deficit,
as measured for EU purposes.
Thus, Irish Water has to be seen to raise a significant part of its
funding from sources other than the Government.
The rules for this are set down by the EU statistics agency Eurostat,
in what is called a market corporation test in other words, a test
of what Irish Waters finances need to look like to justify its
existence as an independent entity.
Three tests need to be met, relating to the amounts that Irish Water
raises in revenues from households, businesses and the
Government and the relationship between these numbers.
Two of these restrict the Governments wiggle room.
First, the amount of money raised from the public must clearly
exceed payments from Government coffers. Previous figures show
that revenue from households (just over 300 million in 2015) and
businesses (230 million) at 530 million exceeded total
Government support by about 100 million.
Doesnt add up
The second test is even tighter. It requires that the amount
collected from households and businesses must be equal to 50 per
cent of Irish Waters production costs, and should clearly exceed
this figure as soon as possible.
With production costs of just over 1 billion, this leaves very little
room to play with. Even if there was some adjustment to Irish
Waters costs, it is hard to see the figures adding up if less than
250 million is collected from households, and more in future years.
Giving money back via tax relief and household benefit packages
will help stay within the rules, while cutting the net costs to
households.
The cash will still come in to Irish Water from the public and can
thus be counted in its finances.
Widening the promised tax relief to households so that all
households benefit from 100 in tax relief, no matter what their bill
comes to together with a credit for those on welfare support is
one key step in the Governments plan to try to assuage public
anger.
Further moves to cap charges are also being considered, but these
will have to ensure that Irish Water still gets enough revenue.
Will It Cost The Government 930 Million Euro per year to
Abolish Water Charge as it Claims?
Read ML Taft Economist at UNITE THE UNION
http://notesonthefront.typepad.com/
The Government Should now Come Clean on Water
Charges
I admit I cant let this issue go but such is the misrepresentation, partial
information and deliberate obfuscation being put out in the debate that it
goes beyond a narrow calculation. It actually reveals a Government
determined to hide the facts in pursuit of a policy which caused over
150,000 to demonstrate last weekend.
Yes, Im talking about water charges but specifically about the estimated
impact on the deficit if water charges were removed. And now Dr. Tom
McDonnell over at the Nevin Economic Research Institute has done his own
sums and they mirror what I had previously calculated here.
The Government is claiming that removing the water charges would cost
800 million (this was run out again on Morning Ireland today). Is this
correct? No. Lets look at how the Government is obscuring the real
numbers and see if we can find the right ones. If this gets a little number-
dense please stay with it for it is about more than just abstract
calculations; it is about how the Government is treating this issue and the
public at large. All numbers are approximate and rounded. I have produced
a summary table below.
7 First, the total cost of water service provision is 1.3 billion (700 million in
current spending and 600 million in investment).
Second, the Government is committing 500 million from the Local
Government Fund to Irish Water. This is on the books; that is, this is
counted as government expenditure.
6 Third, this leaves a saving to the Government of 800 million.
So far, pretty clear. The Gvvernment's argument seems to stack up. But, no,
this is not the case. Because the Government is losing 250 million in
revenue. This is the amount collected through commercial water charges on
businesses This used to Government coffers. Now it belongs to Irish Water.
So the Government gains 800 million savings on the expenditure side but
loses 250 million on the revenue side. This leaves a saving of
approximately 550 million. This is pretty much the same number that Dr.
McDonnell arrives at: 527 million.
Ok, so we have sorted that out. The actual cost of removing water charges
would be 550 million yes? No, that's not it either. Because the
Government is spending money as part of the move to water charging
spending that wouldnt exist if there werent the charges. Dr. McDonnell
states that he doesnt factor these in. So lets do that. There are three
expenditures:
First, Social Protection is increasing subsidies to the Household Benefit
Package and recipients of the National Fuel Allowance scheme to offset the
cost of their water bills. This will cost 66 million.
Second, a water tax credit scheme is being introduced. This will cost 40
million.
Finally, the cost of providing free water allowanced for children is on the
books; that is, it is counted as government expenditure.
Social transfers in kind include such items as free travel on public
transport, fuel allowances and the child-based free allowance related to
water charges.
How much does this cost? The Government doesnt say. But we can
estimate. There were approximately 1,170,000 recipients of Child Benefit.
Each one of these children should be receiving a free water allowance of
21,000 litres per year. On the basis that this will cost 102 per child, this
brings the total cost to 119 million. But this is just an estimate so lets be
conservative and round it down to 100 million.
When we add up these costs Social Protection subsidies, tax relief and free
water allowances for children it comes to 200 million. This will cost the
Government.
When we subtract these expenditures from the 550 million net savings to
the Government from moving Irish Water off the books, the bottom-line
savings is between 300 and 350 million. Heres the summary table.
So the Government claims removing water charges will cost 800 million.
But when we factor in the lost revenue (commercial water charges) and
additional expenditure (Social Protection subsidies and tax cuts), the net
cost will less than half that: between 300 and 350 million.
Why is this so important? Because it shows that if water charges were
removed, the impact to the deficit would be miniscule (0.16 percent of
GDP). This would still leave the Government well below the deficit target.
The Government is refusing to listen to people not because it would
undermine their deficit target but because . . . well, you supply the answer.
The Government can claim its numbers are right but only if they ignore the
losses and additional expenditure. This is highly misleading. They do not
refer to net costs; they do not refer to the net impact on the deficit. This is
no way to debate public finances.
Of course, both Dr. McDonnells and my own calculations are just estimates.
There is one body that can bring complete clarity to this issue: the
Government. But they are refusing to answer simple questions in the Dail.
Therefore, the appropriate Oireachtas Committee should take up this issue
either the Public Accounts Committee or the Joint Committee on Finance,
Public Expenditure and Reform. It is up to legislators to protect the
integrity of the debate over public finances.
There is a simple rule in debate: when someone obfuscates, avoids direct
questions and resorts to throwing out numbers without reference to the
bottom line, you can be assured: they have something to hide.
No wonder 150,000 people were out marching last weekend. They oppose
water charges. And they, rightly, dont trust the Government on this issue.
Unrealistic Timelines: Water Charges and the Fiscal
Deficit
During a recent debate on water charges, Minister Alan Kelly had this to say
about Government policy:
I would go so far as to say that the timelines operating to date have been
somewhat unrealistic, squeezing many years of work into too fine a
condensed period of months.
To which a reasonable policy response would be abandon the current
timeline; in particular, the introduction of water charges. If the timelines
are unrealistic then, clearly, it is realistic to proceed with the charges.
However, an argument that has arisen in the last week is that if water
charges were abolished, suspended, postponed, put in cryogenic freeze,
whatever, it would have a negative impact on our deficit. This arises
because Irish Water is now off-the-books for the purposes of calculating
our deficit. This means that, unlike in the past, expenditure in water
services is not counted as government expenditure since more than 50
percent of its revenue comes from non-government services (i.e. household
and business charges). There is an exception to this which is discussed
below.
So how much would it cost the state to get rid of the charges? I have heard
claims that it would cost an extra 600 million, 800 million, 1 billion and
more. Would it?
FFs Micheal McGrath asked the Minister of Finance a pretty straight-forward
question:
To ask the Minister for Finance the deficit in nominal and percentage
terms which would exist in 2015 if domestic water charges were not
applied, and the costs associated with water provision if brought fully back
on to the State's books.
The Minister refused to answer the question or even offer an estimate. So
when you hear Ministers, backbench TDs and commentators going on about
how much it would cost the state to get rid of water charges, just
remember: the Minister for Finance refused to tell the Dail how much.
[Also, SFs Angus Snodaigh also asked the same Minister Kelly the amount
it will cost to provide water and sewerage services in 2015. Again, no
answer. What does it take to get a direct answer to a direct question?]
Given the official silence on this issue, I went in search for the answer. The
PwC report on water services published in late 2011 stated that the cost of
water services, which includes investment, was 1.1 billion in 2010. Lets
assume some growth in spending, though during this period it could have
easily been cut (Eurostat numbers show a steady reduction of expenditure
since 2010 but they have a different method of categorising water
expenditure so we cant be sure if were comparing like-with-like).
If the cost of providing water services in 2015 is 1.2 billion, and the 533
million is on-the-books, then the Government will benefit by 667 million.
Therefore, if there were no water charges, then the deficit would rise by
667 million.
However, the Minister also stated that 233 million in revenue from non-
domestic sources (does this refer to businesses?) counts as Government
revenue which wouldnt be the case with households. I cant say
conclusively how this impacts but if given that off-the-books revenue must
be at least 50 percent, and the Government has trimmed this to be as low
as possible, we could be looking at a saving of only 300 million for the
Government.
And the cost of the child-free water allowances will also count as
government expenditure. If the charges were abolished, so would this
expenditure.
Is this clear? No, but the Government has refused to answer straight-
forward questions. To complicate matters further the Government is
intending to spend 223 million in an equity investment in Irish Water. But
if we just freeze the situation, this 223 million wouldnt arise, so we
shouldnt allow this to be thrown into the pile.
So what have got? On a static basis:
7 If the savings to the Government were 667 million, then the deficit would
rise by 0.3 percent. The Government would still hit its 3 percent deficit
target.
If the savings were 300 million, then the deficit would rise by only 0.1
percent meaning the Government would come in comfortably below target
(at 2.8 percent).
However, this is on a static basis. One has to estimate three things: first,
with the removal of the water charges, consumer spending will rise, thus
increasing GDP (for most people, every 1 not spent on water charges is
likely to be spent in the domestic economy). A higher GDP means a reduced
deficit (as a percentage of GDP).
Second, tax revenue rises from the increased spending; this has a downward
pressure on the deficit.
Third, social protection costs may fall if employment arises from this
increased spending; again, putting downward pressure on the deficit.
Therefore, the Government would come in below their targets. And thats
for 2015. When you estimate the impact on the deficit for 2016 and
beyond, it makes little difference to the deficit as it will be falling
substantially.
If my estimates of costs hold then the Government will hit its fiscal targets
next year and the following years. I am open to correction but the only
ones who can do that are the Government and they aren't telling.
The Government should call a halt to this mess called Irish Water. It is a
toxic brand that no amount of re-branding will save. If the Government, as
part of a panic measure to mollify the opposition, caps water charges until
2016, this could actually threaten the ability of the Government to keep
expenditure off the books (never mind the whole conservation mojo). The
Government would be imposing charges, but be unable to keep the spending
off the books. All economic pain, no fiscal gain.
Stop the mess. Put the numbers out into the public domain. Go back to the
drawing board.
There are other, better ways to finance water investment, dis-incentivise
wasteful consumption and fund a modern, state-of-the-art water and waste
system.
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-
files/en/Publications/Environment/Water/FileDownLoad
%2C29193%2Cen.pdf
Department of Finance
Water Charges Introduction
end .main
All Written Answers on 21 Oct 2014
Previous answer
Next answer
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)Link to this:
Individually | In context 1415055600, 1488324833 | Oireachtas source
246. To ask the Minister for Finance the deficit in nominal and
percentage terms which would exist in 2015 if domestic
water charges were not applied, and the costs associated
with water provision if brought fully back on to the State's
books; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[40441/14]
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Michael Noonan (Minister, Department of Finance; Limerick City, Fine

Gael)Link to this: Individually | In context 1415055600, 1488324833 |
Oireachtas source
In my reply to the Deputy's PQ No. 166 of 7 October last
(37932/14), I pointed out that the CSO would have to take the
absence of water charges into account in its classification of Irish
Water. I also informed the Deputy that if Irish Water was
classified inside general government then all revenue and
expenditure would count towards the general government
balance.
My colleague the Minister for the Environment, Community and
Local Government is providing 533 million from the Local
Government Fund, which is in general government, to Irish Water
in 2015. Accordingly, this amount of 533m is already included
in general government expenditure for 2015.
Furthermore revenue from non-domestic customers, which I
understand is worth about 230m annually, will count as general
government revenue off-setting an equal amount of general
government expenditure.
I am also providing equity investment of 222m to Irish Water in
2015 subject to the CSO and Eurostat classifying Irish Water as a
market institutional unit outside of general government. If this
were not the case then such a transfer could, if it were made, be
classified as a capital transfer and become general government
expenditure when invested by Irish Water.
Accordingly, under the scenario that Irish Water is in general
government, any expenditure or investment undertaken by Irish
Water in 2015 over and above the amounts outlined above would
be counted as general government expenditure and impact the
deficit. Money borrowed by Irish Water would also count towards
general government debt.
Regarding the costs associated with water provision in 2015, I
refer you to PQ No. 498 (35470/14) of 23 September
last answered by my colleague the Minister for the Environment,
Community and Local Government.
https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2014-10-21a.421&s=
%22water%22+section%3Awrans
Irish Water: Motion [Private Members]
Tuesday, 21 October 2014
7:50 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)Link to this: Individually | In

context 1415055600, 1488324909 | Oireachtas source
I move:
That Dil ireann:notes:
that the 2009 Fine Gael Party NewERA document advocated

the establishment of Irish Water;
the announcement of the Irish Water Charges Plan on 30th

September and the introduction of the new domestic water tariff
system on 1st October;
the 172 million set-up costs of Irish Water;
the 80 million being spent on consultants within the set-up of

Irish Water;
the 500 million ongoing estimated spend on water metering

across the country;
the 300 million in total annual domestic revenue accruing to

Irish Water;
the performance related award bonus structure within Irish
Water; and
the 700 staff due to be employed within Irish Water by the

end of 2015;
further notes:
the Governments plans to subsidise Irish Water's domestic

revenue stream through several options by an estimated 125
million;
the estimated domestic revenue stream, after Government

subsidies, of approximately 150 million - 175 million; and
the number of changes to the water charges system

introduced by the Government since 1st October;
condemns:
the Government's failure to address excessive spending on

outside consultants;
the lack of information for members of the public and lack of a

complaints system;
the lack of communications between the Oireachtas and Irish

Water;
the lack of additional spending on the water infrastructure

network; and
the Government's refusal to acknowledge the ability to pay or

otherwise; and
calls on the Government to:
fully review the appropriateness of the Irish Water model from

a funding and service delivery point of view;
assess the actual sustainability of the funding streams of Irish

Water;
confirm that it has no intention of privatising Irish Water;

establish an equitable regime for reliefs on domestic water
tariffs;
ensure the body is subjected to full Oireachtas scrutiny, not

just internal political party forums; and
cease any payment of bonuses within Irish Water.

I wish to share time with Deputies Sen Fleming and O'Dea.
This is the third time we have had to use Private Members'

business to raise the issue of water charges and the setting up of
Irish Water, and in an effort to highlight the unmitigated disaster
it has been. I have also published various Bills in an effort to
amend the legislation which gave effect to the setting up,
ongoing maintenance and administration of Irish Water. On each
and every occasion we were voted down and largely ignored, yet
the problems never went away, the costs were never reduced
and peoples fears were never addressed. The problem that was,
and still is, Irish Water, was allowed to drift, and the runaway
train continues apace.
We failed to divert the initial course of action by the Government,

which created a gold-plated, bonus-driven, super quango. We
were not alone in that regard. PricewaterhouseCoopers, PWC,
was commissioned by the Government to carry out a report and
it advised against the vehicle that became Irish Water. We then
focused on the many deficiencies within the legislation, which
was not open to debate. We say now what we said then, namely,
that the provisions of the legislation will impinge on peoples
ability to pay for a system that is not fit for purpose. One could
ask whether we should we be forced to have to take that route.
Of course we should not.
The role of the Opposition is to seek to hold the Government to

account. In order for Government to allow the Dil to work
effectively on behalf of citizens, it must provide that legislation is
analysed and scrutinised. That was most definitely not the case
with the legislation to give effect to the quango in question. If it
had been, many issues and problems that have ensued might
have been identified. Those problems now have the potential to
derail Irish Water. Many citizens are frustrated, fearful, worried,
annoyed and definitely very angry. They are angry to such an
extent that many feel it necessary to follow a path of
disobedience. Such a course of action threatens the ability of the
Government and this House to bring the public with them
towards meaningful recovery for all; rich and poor, young and
old, employed and unemployed, public and private sector, urban
dwellers and rural dwellers. Divisions have been created that will
be hard to mend. The situation will ultimately lead to a grave
distrust of the Government. As trust subsides, Governments
panic and bad governance sets in. When backbenchers panic,
governance will get worse. As the Government's once massive
mandate weakens it finds itself at a crossroads. One of those
roads leads to an election. Last week some Government Deputies
described the budget as an election budget. I caution them to be
careful what they wish for in that regard.
Fine Gael and Labour made many commitments in the previous

election campaign. Having vehemently opposed the tough yet
progressive budgets which achieved two thirds of the fiscal
adjustments to consolidate the economy, the Government
promised to steer a different path. Fine Gael and Labour said
they would not be a party to the tough but necessary corrective
measures. The public accepted their analysis and argument.
People had seen them vote against such budgets and their
associated finance Bills. They had promised a softer and easier
way. They said the troika agreement would be torn up. In
addition to the softer and easier way, the two parties promised a
new politics, a democratic revolution that would include report
cards for Ministers. They said there would be no hooky
appointments to State boards or other such bodies but what we
got was very different. What we got was a recognition that the
fiscal consolidation path had to be continued, the four-year
programme and the targets it contained would after all continue
under the new Government with its new politics of democratic
revolution. Hence, the Tesco advertisements were binned, the red
line issues were deleted, the five-point plan was silenced; the
strategic investment bank was quelled, to name but a few of the
promised initiatives. The Government had also to rid itself of the
statement the Labour Party made about Frankfurt's way.
In addition, there was the infamous explanation for the reason

people were let down; that it is what one does during an election.
That was another item to add to the bin. The expensive advisers
that were to be ditched were hired with gusto and their
associated payment caps were also thrown in the bin. The only
advice they could give in order to plough ahead was to blame
Fianna Fil and that might have won the Government the
previous election. I do not say who will win the next election but
if the Government continues along the same path, it will not win
another election.
Fianna Fil achieved 450,000 votes in 2011. The party in

government did two thirds of the heavy lifting necessary to
achieve fiscal consolidation and allow a prospect of growth. The
party achieved more votes and seats than any other party in the
local elections. Fianna Fil had discussions with the troika on
several occasions since the Dil was convened. The troika
reiterated to us, other Opposition parties and Independent
Members that the financial targets were the bottom line, not the
detail. All those factors determine that we have a duty and
mandate, as well as many others, to participate and to engage
and recommend paths to recovery. We were ignored on Irish
Water. The Government can ignore us at its peril, but it should be
very careful about ignoring the public. It does so at its peril.
On assuming office, Fine Gael wanted to broaden the tax base.

That is a credible and understandable objective. However, one
would assume that to achieve it, the parameters would have to
be right, the preparations would have to be thorough, the public
would have to be won over to the concept, the procedure, the
path and its delivery. Property tax and water charges were the
means chosen by the Government to achieve such a broadening
of the tax base but it would have to be done fast by a tough
Minister in a strict timeframe. The tough Minister in question
would need an incentive, a carrot. He would also require a line
that would not trouble Fine Gael or Labour either as they would
have to be brought along to support the endeavour. The Minister
appointed by the Taoiseach was Phil Hogan. The timeframe was
three years, the carrot was Brussels and the political line was
that it was Fianna Fil's fault anyway. With its ducks in a row,
and its target in sight, the Taoiseach and the Economic
Management Council, EMC, consisting of the then Tnaiste,
Deputy Gilmore, of the Labour Party, the Minister for Finance,
Deputy Noonan, from Fine Gael and the Minister for Public
Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, also from the Labour
Party, with the then Minister for the Environment, Community
and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, would pursue the target
and the carrot with gusto.
We know now that most of the Cabinet would be kept in dark

about the mechanism used to fund the quango. Ministers did not
have to feign surprise last January when they were told about the
cost of consultants. They were surprised and they were not
aware of the facts, as they should have been, but that is the way
the Government works. The members of the EMC disregard many
of their ministerial colleagues. Not only were members of the
Cabinet ignored but the Minister of State with responsibility to for
the implementation of NewERA, Deputy Fergus O'Dowd, was
ignored if he was not prepared to toe the line. The Opposition
was ignored and debate was shut down. The Commission for
Energy Regulation, CER, was to be instructed on policy and Irish
Water was told to plough ahead and set up its pay systems and
bonuses. Local authority managers were told they could resign or
retire, get their packages and get a new job in Irish Water. Irish
Water could do as it liked. It could get the charges as quickly as
possible and swell the Government's coffers for future tax
giveaways and election victories. However, the Government did
not bank on John Tierney's interview with Sean O'Rourke. Only
then did the chickens find their way home and consider roosting.
The cat was out of the bag, but the Government said to plough
on regardless. Furthermore, it instructed Irish Water and the CER
to plough on regardless. The Government never banked on a
resilient nation, a persistent Opposition, the local election results,
the by-election results or people power, as exemplified in the
march that took place last Saturday week.
This weekends announcements by RTE following our

parliamentary question last week eventually proved what we
suspected all along, that Irish Water as set up by this
Government, by every member of the parties associated with it,
is nothing but a gold-plated, bonus-driven super quango. The
Government would not do it before but now is the time for an
honest, open, frank debate; now is the time to initiate an
appropriate review of Irish Water and its ability to be a service
provider. In the meantime, all impending charges need to be
suspended.
To set this debate in its proper context the Dil needs to
acknowledge and note some facts. In 2009 it was Fine Gael, not
the troika, which in its NewERA document advocated the setting
up of Irish Water. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, I believe, was at
the heart of it. I would very much like to know who were the
consultants hired to initiate that plan. I ask the Dil to note that
it cost 172 million to set up; I ask the Dil to note that 80
million has been spent on consultants; I ask the Dil to note that
500 million has been spent on metering; I ask the Dil to note
further the categoric and unambiguous fact that there are
performance-related bonus structures in Irish Water, despite
what the then Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, said last January, that
there is no bonus culture in Bord Gis ireann nor will there be in
Irish Water. I ask the House to call on all its Members from Fine
Gael and the Labour Party as well as ourselves, to condemn the
Government for its failure to address excessive spending on
consultants and the set-up costs; for its lack of information
provided to the public, whether by CER or Irish Water or the
Department of the Environment, Community and Local
Government; for the lack of a complaints system which should be
enshrined in any such body; and for the lack of an adequate
communication system for Oireachtas Members. This is the
second or third time we have raised this issue in the House. We
raised it last year, in September, October and November and
Departments refused to answer questions about Irish Water
tabled by me and others. The conceited, underhanded nature in
which the body was configured from a monetary perspective
allowed the Government to avoid answering questions. The
Government gave a commitment in January or February which it
has not honoured and we are now at the end of October.
I ask the Dil to condemn the lack of additional spending that is
evident in the same Irish Water. The three-year spending
programme of 1.7 billion announced earlier this year was not a
red cent more than was given in capital expenditure by the
previous manner in which funds were expended in this area. I
condemn the Government for the lack of a mechanism of an
inability-to-pay clause.
When I think of the ongoing concerted effort by Government to
keep the public in the dark and all the double-speak we have
heard, I am reminded of what has been said in recent months.
The Taoiseach spoke on this issue in the House on several
occasions. He initially said that children would not have to pay for
water, that there would be no charge. He subsequently said that
children would be given 38,000 litres free and then he said it
would be 21,000 litres. He said the average charge would be
240 but it is far from it. The Taoiseach admitted that Irish Water
has had a few teething problems. I refer to what we have been
told in recent days. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade,
Deputy Charles Flanagan, said Irish Water needs to be more
customer-friendly; the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy
Frances Fitzgerald, said that Irish Water needs to work on its PR;
the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, said he met with Irish Water two
weeks ago and he expressed concern about the bonuses; and a
total of 20 Fine Gael Deputies spoke out last week at a
parliamentary party meeting saying that they had a problem with
the communications in Irish Water but they had no problem in
marching up to vote for it. I remind the 20 Deputies, wherever
they are, and the Labour Party Deputies, that nobody but
themselves set up Irish Water. They would not listen to anyone
because they took their orders from the top down and they were
kept in the dark.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
8:00 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)Link to this: Individually

| In context 1415055600, 1488324909 | Oireachtas source
Big Phil.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

We were not allowed to contribute to the debate and we were not
allowed to show those opposite that some of the measures could
not work. They are all culpable and they are all responsible.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, said last week
after the budget that the Opposition is only scratching around for
an issue and it has come up with Irish Water. I say to the Minister
that the people of Roscommon are scratching around; the people
of Dublin South-West are scratching around; and up to 100,000
people on Dublin streets last Saturday week were scratching
around too. Now we hear that a few backbenchers are scratching
around. How much scratching around does it take to get with the
programme?
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
(Interruptions).
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)Link to this: Individually |

In context 1415055600, 1488324909 | Oireachtas source
One speaker, please.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

There is no doubt that the Minister for Finance did not single-
handed return this economy towards the prospect of growth,
prosperity or even recovery. However, that disregard, contempt
and ill-feeling towards genuine fears and anxieties that exist,
risks everything and says so much about this Government's total
and absolute disregard for the democratic process, a disregard
for the people who elected us to this House, who gave us the
privilege to explore, analyse and critically examine legislation
despite the fact that we might not agree with the thrust of such
legislation or the policy behind it. We have a mandate first of all,
and a duty thereafter, to analyse that legislation and to ensure in
our belief that it will have the least possible detrimental effect on
those we represent and is in the best possible interest of the
country and the coffers.
I will make clear that my party wants a review of the service-
delivery model of the vehicle and of the system which the
Government put in place, Irish Water. We want a proper and
critical assessment of the sustainability of the funding model
contained within it. I want the House to confirm categorically in
this debate, once and for all, that there will be no privatisation. I
want the Government to enshrine in this Irish Water model,
which it has pushed ahead, an equitable regime that has at its
core an ability-to-pay clause. I want the Government once again
to provide an assurance that there will be full accountable
scrutiny of this body by the Oireachtas, that when Members of
the Oireachtas make inquiries and raise concerns and when they
wish to make representations on behalf of their constituents,
they will be treated with a bit of respect which their constituents
deserve. The cat is out of the bag and the game is up - Sen
O'Rourke saw to that last January. The Government gave
commitments which have not been honoured and only when they
are honoured can the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, be
told that the scratching might stop.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Sen Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)Link to this: Individually | In

I thank my colleague, Deputy Cowen, for tabling this motion on
behalf of the Fianna Fil Party. We are discussing what is
becoming the increasingly discredited super quango, Irish Water.
The whole country is furious about this matter. The Government
has a Dil majority of well over 100 Members but I am looking
around now and I count only four Members present on the other
side. The Government side of the House is not listening - its
Members are not even here to listen and there is not a single
member of the Government present. It reminds me of last
Tuesday evening, the day of the budget. The Ministers delivered
their scripts but it was an inconvenience for them to have to
come into the House to deliver their scripts because as the
Taoiseach said they had to speak to the nation by means of press
conferences with the national media. Once they had delivered
their scripts they left the Chamber, as did every other Minister
and more than 100 Members on the Government side. We were
left with four Members from the Government parties to listen to
what the Opposition had to say.
The same level of arrogance and contempt for the Chamber is
being displayed this evening. It is no wonder the Government is
having trouble with Irish Water. The principal reason for this is
that it is not listening. It is not listening to the people, to the
professional advisers who presented a report on the flawed
model with which the Government proceeded, or to the
Oireachtas. The longer it tries to run the House like an absentee
landlord, the more trouble it will get in.
Only four members of the Government parties out of well over
100 are present, with no member of the Cabinet. It is a repeat of
what the Government did last Tuesday. It might do it again next
Tuesday and the following Tuesday, but while it can run away
from the Oireachtas, it cannot run away from the public in 12
months time or whenever the election is held. Let it be a salutary
lesson. Members of the Government parties will wonder why the
people will be cross with them. If the people look at this debate,
and it should be borne in mind that it is being broadcast on a
couple of television stations as we speak, they will see the
contempt the Government is showing for the debate on Irish
Water. It showed contempt when it established Irish Water. It
guillotined the legislation last December and did not allow a
debate. It showed contempt. If I were to characterise the
performance of the Government on the Irish Water fiasco, I
would say one word sums it up, and that is "contempt". The
Government has shown it every single step of the way.
The Government has sought in recent days to blame the chief
executive. We are not here to defend John Tierney, but he is one
of the finest public servants and has an excellent track record at
delivering to the detail on Government policy. The reason the
Government is unhappy with him is because he is delivering its
policy of which it is now ashamed and from which it is trying to
run and hide. The running and hiding will stop, because it will
have to face the electorate in the ballot box.
The Government blames the management of Irish Water for
communication. Not a single issue upsetting the people is the
fault of Irish Water. The Government regulator, who is not
independent, was given his instructions and procedures to follow
and told the parameters by which he could arrive at his decision.
The Government regulator set the price. The Government
regulator announced the free water allowances. The bonuses
were approved by the former Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, who is in
the House, because it is part of Bord Gis and he approved them
within Bord Gis. Ervia, the parent company, also runs Bord Gis,
and Deputy Rabbitte was aware at all stages of the bonus culture
in the organisation establishing Irish Water. The former Minister,
Mr. Hogan, was the same.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
8:10 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Pat Rabbitte (Minister, Department of Communications, Energy and

Natural Resources; Dublin South West, Labour)Link to this: Individually | In
For the record, I did not approve that bonus scheme.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Sen Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)Link to this: Individually | In

Deputy Rabbitte was aware of the bonus culture. I did not ask
him whether he signed up to the jocose bonus culture we now
have, whereby even those who do not do their work or show up
will receive a bonus. If he had inquired, which was his job, about
what bonus regime was in place in Bord Gis, he would have
known what would follow into Irish Water. The Tnaiste, Deputy
Joan Burton, signed up to the fiasco with regard to the PPS
numbers, because Irish Water will consult the Department of
Social Protection, which is responsible for PPS numbers. This
could not have been done without the Minister having agreed to
it. We asked time and again for Irish Water to be included under
the freedom of information legislation. A third Labour Party
Minister, Deputy Howlin, refused to do this, but eventually he was
forced to do so. The former Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, knew
about the bonus culture in Bord Gis, which is running this
operation. The Tnaiste and Minister for Social Protection, Deputy
Burton, approved the PPS arrangement whereby people must
include the PPS numbers on the application forms. The Minister,
Deputy Howlin, tried to keep it from being subject to the freedom
of information legislation by establishing it as a semi-State
company.
The possible privatisation of Irish Water is a live issue which

upsets the people. I find one sentence in the Government
amendment to the motion grossly hypocritical. It states the
Government recognises the legislation establishing Irish Water
prohibits the privatisation of the company. One vote, one
guillotine and one whim of the Government can change this
outright overnight. Members of the Government know all it takes
is for the Government to come in some fine day and change it.
This was voted in without the Opposition present. The
Government did not allow a debate and the Opposition could only
do what it could, which was leave the Chamber, after which the
Government proceeded with a guillotine. A simple vote of the
Government can change what is in the legislation. Any assurance
from the Government that it will not privatise Irish Water counts
for nothing because it only holds for as long as the vote lasts,
and at a future date a Fine Gael Government will try to privatise
Irish Water.
The people are returning to sender their application forms for

their free allowance en masse, and there are not just boxloads of
them in post offices throughout the country. I had it confirmed to
me this morning that pallet loads of forms with "return to sender"
on them, returned by the people, are in An Post sorting offices
throughout the country. This is what the people think of what the
Government is doing.
Measures on tax credits and social protection were announced

last week in the budget. Despite these hasty measures, many
people were left out. Those who do not pay income tax or who
are on low incomes are excluded, as are people who lose their
jobs and receive jobseeker's allowance. How did the Tnaiste,
Deputy Joan Burton, come in here and tell the people if they lose
their job and go on jobseeker's allowance they will not receive
any allowance because they are not in receipt of the fuel
allowance? Only people on long-term jobseeker's allowance
receive this and those out of work for up to 12 or 14 months will
not be able to avail of it.
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Kelly, to the House. We now have

five Members of the Government parties out of more than 100,
and at least one member of the Cabinet has shown up at this late
stage.
The people have lost confidence in Irish Water. The Minister is

presiding over this floundering around him. It is not too late to
go back to the drawing board. A key measure left out of the
legislation from the very beginning is recognition of the ability of
people to pay. The Government's ham-fisted efforts last week
were panic-driven because of the people it saw on the streets the
previous weekend. This is only making the people angrier.
The only thing Irish Water has done since being established is to
spend 500 million on installing meters and 180 million on
consultants and a billing system. Irish Water is not spending one
additional euro on investment in the network or water and
sewage treatment plants compared with what was spent the
previous year by the local authorities - not one single euro. When
one considers the amount that subsidies will cost taxpayers,
through tax credits and people receiving social welfare
allowances, the net income of Irish Water will only be
approximately 175 million per annum. It will take four years to
recoup the funds invested in the meters, consultants and the
billing system based on the revenue from the domestic charges
the Government hopes people will pay next year. This is
assuming a relatively high number of people pay their bills. The
Government is threatening the financial viability of Irish Water,
and in doing so it will have to recoup the cost over the coming
years and less will be spent on the infrastructure rather than
more, which is needed.
Fianna Fil is telling the Government it is not too late to go back

to the drawing board. It should do so now. We are stating clearly
and unambiguously that it is time for a comprehensive review on
the role and performance of Irish Water in its entirety. Do not
rule out closing down that ugly shop.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)Link to this: Individually | In

I thank Deputy Cowen for tabling this motion. A total of 750,000
people in the country, that is one in six, live below the poverty
line. Hundreds of thousands more are struggling just barely
above that line. The population as a whole has been battered by
year after year of austerity, cuts, charges and impositions of all
sorts, both covert and overt. Against this background the least
that people are decently entitled to expect is that where the
Government establishes a body, regardless of what type of body
it is, to impose another charge on these battered taxpayers, the
interaction between this body and the taxpayers who will be
charged should be clear, transparent and coherent. Deputy
Fergus O'Dowd, among others, has told us, and we do not have
to take his word for it because we see it every day, that Irish
Water is acting in a way which is the polar opposite of this
transparency, accountability and openness.
8 o’clock
It is opaque, distant and even disinterested.

I will give the House some examples of my interaction with Irish
Water to illustrate what I am saying. Some time ago I telephoned
Irish Water with a simple query. I am lucky enough to own a
second house in Limerick and I have it converted to use as a
constituency office. I wanted an answer to the simple question as
to how that is treated for water tax purposes. Is it in the same
category as a holiday home? Is it an unoccupied building? What
is it exactly? The gentleman who answered said, "Well, Deputy,
that's a very interesting question, but I can't answer it. I'll have
to put you on to somebody higher up". He duly put me on to
somebody higher up and the reply I got from the somebody
higher up was, "Well, Deputy, that is a most interesting question,
but we don't have the answer to it. I'll have to put you further up
again". So I went up and up; I almost finished on the roof.
Eventually when I got to the key man he told me - guess what -
"That's a very interesting question. I don't have the answer, but
give me your mobile phone number and I'll ring you back within
the hour". That was five weeks ago and I have not heard a word
back from that man since.
Undeterred by my failure in that regard, because of countless
constituents who have queried why they need to submit their PPS
numbers, I contacted Irish Water again with a simple question.
Why do people, for example, those who are being assessed and
who know what their liability will be, have to submit their PPS
numbers? As a matter of fact, why do I, as a citizen, have to
submit my PPS number? I got straight through to the top on this
occasion, I am glad to say. The gentleman's first response was
shameless blackmail. He said, "You go and tell your constituents
that if they don't give their PPS numbers, they won't get their
allowances". I reminded him that was not the question I asked
him at all; I wanted a clear rationale for why people had to
submit their PPS numbers. He went into an explanation and to
my amazement I could not understand the language he was
speaking. After a while I figured it out; it was a variant of the
English language, called incoherent gibberish. I would have been
better off if the man had been talking Swahili because then I
would know why I did not understand what he was saying.
George Orwell said that the function of political language is often
"to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind". If that is the
case, the function of the language of Irish Water is to give the
appearance of pure balderdash to - well - pure balderdash.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
8:20 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Hurricane Willie.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

One speaker, please.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Undeterred by my failure at verbal communication, I sent an e-
mail and got a response back late last night that stated, "The PPS
numbers have to be submitted to ensure that correct water
allowances are allocated to the correct recipients". That is a very
interesting answer because it tells us that Irish Water is starting
from the premise that the entirety - or almost the entirety - of
the population are shysters, fraudsters and gangsters who will
deliberately submit false returns and poor old Irish Water will
give 5 million allowances to 1.5 million houses.
The Revenue Commissioners, who collect tax in this country, take
people on trust. A person fills out a tax return outlining his or her
circumstances. In most cases that will not be examined as they
take people on trust. There is a spot-check, and anybody caught
cheating the system will be dealt with very severely and properly
so. I cannot understand why Irish Water cannot do something
similar.
The Minister ought to be aware of a court case in the past three
weeks where two people were successfully prosecuted and
convicted for obtaining information from the Department of
Social Protection - namely people's addresses - by giving the
Department of Social Protection PPS numbers which they had got
from credit unions. That should illustrate, if illustration was
needed, the danger of people's most confidential information -
their PPS numbers - getting into the hands of a third party.
I have received no coherent explanation from Irish Water as to
why I, as a citizen, should submit my PPS number and I have
absolutely no intention of doing so. At the end of the day, when I
get my water bill I will pay it, but I will deduct the allowance to
which I am legally entitled. At that point Irish Water with its
serried armies of consultants laden down with taxpayers'
largesse, employees laden down with bonuses and directors, who
regard their responsibility as of such importance that it is only
secondary to driving the Minister's car, can all come after me if
they wish.
In addition I made a further effort to get information on this by
tabling a parliamentary question to the Minister for the
Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Kelly,
who is sitting across from us now looking pensive. I asked him
what my constituents - and constituents of very other Member of
this House - are asking. Why do people have to submit their PPS
numbers? I was not alone; in fairness, Deputies Clare Daly and
Catherine Murphy tabled similar questions. I had to laugh out
loud at the sheer irony of the Taoiseach's statement this morning
that the real problem here was that there was not enough
communication. What sort of communication did we get from the
Minister, Deputy Kelly? We got a one-line arrogant reply stating
that the situation was unchanged and outlining Irish Water's
telephone number with a recommendation to use it. That is some
example of communication.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Michel Martin (Leader of the Opposition; Cork South Central, Fianna

Fail)Link to this: Individually | In context 1415055600, 1488324909 |
Oireachtas source
That is accountability.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

It gives rise to a number of very interesting questions. Is that the
Minister's version of accountability?
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

That will go down well in Tipperary.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

We will have one speaker, please. Deputy O'Dea is in possession.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Is that his version of the democratic revolution for which people
voted in such numbers in the last general election? I remember a
grandiose statement from the programme for Government: "We
believe that in recent years an over-powerful Executive has
turned the Dil into an observer of the political process rather
than a central player and that this must be changed". How hollow
that sounds? Is it any wonder there is such cynicism about
politics and the political process when people measure that
performance against the promise?
I have no doubt the Minister in his speech will refer to the hoary
old chestnut the Taoiseach always drags up when he is asked
about this - that Fianna Fil signed some sort of a deal with the
troika for some huge amount of money to be paid by the citizens.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)Link to this: Individually | In context

1415055600, 1488324909 | Oireachtas source
Are you going to borrow it?
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

We will have one speaker, Minister, please.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
I cannot remember exactly the amount because it seems to
change every time he answers the question. However, the
Minister should remember that nobody signed up with the troika
for somebody on the dole with four or five kids to end up paying
400 or 500 in water charges year-in year-out. Nobody signed a
deal with the troika or anybody else that the people of this
country would be forced to shell out tens of millions of euro in
payments to consultants - no doubt very well connected
consultants. Nobody ever signed an agreement with the troika or
anybody else that the battered people of this country would have
to pay bonuses to people simply for turning up - many of them
retired senior officials of local authorities on gold-plated
pensions.
The system is broken. The man who brought the legislation
through the Dil told the Minister that. I urge him to fix it, but I
must say my confidence is not great.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

I move amendment No. a1:
To delete all words after Dil ireann and substitute the
following:
supports the establishment of Irish Water as a long-term

strategic investment project to deliver the necessary water
services infrastructure and quality of services required to meet
statutory compliance and demographic needs, benefitting Irish
citizens and businesses;
recognises that managing our water resources effectively is also

essential to ensure that Ireland can continue to attract major
overseas investment and employment;
recognises that the legislation establishing Irish Water prohibits
the privatisation of the company;
notes that:
following on from the requirement to introduce water charges
as part of the agreement with the troika, the Government
provided for the introduction of a fair funding model to deliver a
clean, reliable and affordable water supply with a charging
system based on usage;
the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, has published its

decision on water charges on 30 September 2014 taking account
of the policy framework set by the Government;
the CER have examined the establishment costs of Irish Water

and approved 172.8 million on the basis that this investment
will enable Irish Water to drive substantial cost savings and
service quality improvements over the interim review period and
for many years to come; and
the CER has approved an extensive capital investment

programme for Irish Water and, in its examination of Irish
Waters costs in the period ahead, set challenging annual
efficiency targets for both operational and capital expenditure;
recognises the importance of ensuring that there is full public
understanding of the rationale for the establishment of Irish
Water and that issues of legitimate public interest arising in that
context are addressed, in order to support public trust and
confidence;
emphasises the commitment of Irish Water to addressing the

issues involved, with a particular priority on actively reviewing its
communications strategy to better reflect the needs of all
stakeholders, including elected members;
welcomes:
the progress with the roll-out of the domestic metering
programme being delivered by Irish Water with some 450,000
meters installed to date, supporting some 1,300 jobs; this level
of meter installation now significantly exceeds the 400,000
target for end-2014 already indicated to the CER;
the indications that progress remains on track for the

installation of 1.05 million meters, with programme completion
likely to be ahead of the target - mid-2016 rather than end-
2016; and
the Governments package of measures to ensure that

domestic water charges are introduced in as fair and equitable a
basis as possible, with particular reference to the following
elements:
Irish Waters Government subvention averaging 537 million
per annum in 2015 and 2016;
each household will receive an annual free allowance of

30,000 litres of water and a corresponding allowance for waste
water;
there will be an additional free allowance for every child under

18 years of age to cover a childs normal consumption of water
supplied and waste water treated, 21,000 litres;
household benefits package and free fuel allowance recipients

will receive a 100 "water support" payment per year, benefiting
653,000 households;
income tax relief on water charges will be available, at the

standard rate, worth up to 100 per household per annum when
claimed in the following year;
charges to be capped for people with high water usage due to

medical needs; and
Irish Water to take account of the quality of services provided

to customers, including circumstances where services are
reduced or restricted, for example, due to boil water notices; and
the Governments intention to provide funding to increase
investment in public water services infrastructure on average by
100 million in each of the years 2015 and 2016, including for a
scheme to provide each household with a free fix of the first leak
on a customers water supply pipe; and
supports the Governments overall water funding package, which
balances the need for a sustainable funding model to support
long-term investment in the sector, taking account of the
relevant European rules on Government accounting, while
ensuring that domestic water charges are introduced in the most
affordable, fair and equitable manner possible.
I thank Deputy Cowen for bringing this motion to the House and
for providing us all with an opportunity to - until the last
contribution - rationally debate the critical challenges the country
faces in terms of our water infrastructure, and the role of Irish
Water and domestic water charges in the future of water services
delivery.
At the outset, I acknowledge that the past few weeks have seen
some difficulties in communication and public engagement
concerning Irish Water. I fully accept this. I accept that for the
public, for some of the utility's customers, the customer
registration process has been frustrating and at times confusing,
and the charging structure is not as easy to understand as it
should be. I believe Irish Water also accepts this.
The timelines associated with the establishment of Irish Water

have been extremely challenging and ambitious and a task of this
scale was never going to run smoothly or easily. There is a need
to directly address many issues that have arisen and I intend to
do so in this debate. I would go so far as to say that the
timelines operating to date have been somewhat unrealistic,
squeezing many years of work into too fine a condensed period
of months. This is about the creation of one of the largest utilities
in the history of the State and it was never going to be a simple
task.
Addressing legitimate issues of concern arising, however, is
essential to maintain public trust and confidence. I expect to see
a major overhaul of the communications strategy employed by
Irish Water and that it will be transformed to a customer
focussed and customer friendly organisation.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
8:30 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Oireachtas source
On a point of order, normally the ministerial script is circulated
during Private Members' business.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

It is a matter for the Minister.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Oireachtas source
This is a normal courtesy. It was de rigueur in our time.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

I will get the Deputy a copy.
This needs to happen urgently and the Government will drive
this. It is clear there has to be a seismic shift in how Irish Water
interfaces with the public. Clarity and certainty has to be given to
members of the public about the charges they will pay. I assure
the House that the Government is working with Ervia and Irish
Water to ensure these issues are addressed and addressed
immediately. I also accept that there needs to be more
explanation of why we have embarked on this highly ambitious
water sector reform programme, what we have achieved in a
short time and what we can achieve for the long-term future of
our public water system. I would like to use this debate as an
opportunity to provide clarity on many of these issues.
It is important, in the first instance, to remind the House of the
purpose of our reforms. The traditional water services system
was in need of fundamental change. Water infrastructure is
deficient and inadequate as a consequence of decades of under
investment and of not having a truly, national approach that
could maximise the impact of investment. The result has been a
national leakage rate of 49%; inadequate wastewater treatment,
with untreated sewage discharging into 42 urban areas, for
example, putting rivers and bathing waters at risk of pollution;
Ireland going on formal notice of an EU infringement case,
requiring wastewater improvements at 66 urban centres; a total
of 22,181 people are on boil water notices, and a further 945,000
people dependent on drinking water supplies at risk of failing
required standards - these include the major but antiquated
drinking water schemes on the Lee Road in Cork and the Vartry
Scheme in Dublin, both critical for our two major cities; and
insufficient supply for the greater Dublin area. While most major
European capital cities have a spare capacity of between 15 and
20%, Dublin has a surplus capacity ranging between 1% and
4%.
Future challenges also make the need for a more cost effective,
efficient and nationally orientated system imperative. Our
population is increasing, and is forecast to increase in the coming
decades. Our economy is recovering, bringing with it added water
demand for industry and agriculture and we have to meet these
challenges. These challenges result in large part from decades of
under investment, with the bulk of that time presided over by
Governments led by the party that tabled the motion. A total of
600 million should be invested every year in capital
infrastructure to ensure our public system of treatment plants
and networks is adequate for modern requirements and
operations, yet recent investment levels have stood at just over
300 million per annum.
Under investment is not the system's only difficulty. Local
authorities have demonstrated commitment and great dedication
to water services for well over a century, but 34 separate water
services authorities providing services and infrastructure
unilaterally for the most part have not, and could not have,
achieved the best public water system. An example of this is in
the lack of economies of scale identified in the independent
assessment on establishing a public water utility. Operating
expenditure per connection, for example, is more than twice the
average of UK water companies.
The only way these deficiencies could be rectified, the
infrastructure deficit removed, the problems of quality addressed
and inefficiencies tackled was by creating a single, national utility
and a new funding model. All parties will be aware that the public
water and wastewater systems will not improve without a
national approach. All parties will be also aware that the best way
to secure the necessary expansion in infrastructure and to ensure
spending on water services is accountable and the standards of
quality expected by the public are achieved is by creating a direct
relationship between the water user and the service provider
where funding goes from one to the other, and where the
expected standards are received in return. We are all aware of
the previous funding model for water services. However,
Members should ask the people on boil notices over 12 years if
this model has worked for them. If water is condemned forever
to compete with health, education and housing for essential
funding, we simply will not be able to address the major
difficulties that exist within our water system and we, as a
Government, will be condemned for not facing up to this reality.
Against this backdrop, I would like to take this opportunity to
dispel certain myths that have grown around the establishment
of Irish water. First, it cannot be privatised. This is the law of the
land. While this is a legitimate concern many people have, it is
based on falsehood and it cannot happen. I would also like to
address the issue of start-up costs of Irish Water, which is
important. I accept again that people need reassurance about
this issue. That is why it is necessary that such costs be
examined by independent experts with experience in utility
management. That was part of the job of the Commission for
Energy Regulation, CER. The conclusion at which it arrived was
that 95% of the establishment costs were justified and 5% of the
budgeted costs should not proceed. I accept that it was incorrect
to refer to too many of these costs as "consultant" costs. Much of
this was related to costs associated with building the company's
systems using outside expertise but I reiterate that after all the
establishment costs of Irish Water were independently assessed,
95% were justified, warranted and necessary.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

What about bonuses?
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

This was done on the basis that these initial costs will enable the
company to drive substantial cost savings and service quality
improvements over the immediate period to end 2016 and for
many years to come.
The CER is responsible for setting performance standards for the
new utility, examining its costs with a view to approving,
amending or rejecting its "water charges plan" and protecting
customers by directing the company in respect of codes of
practice in areas such as performance standards, customer
billing, payment methods, information communication to
customers, and customer complaints. Earlier, the commission's
staff outlined their approach to their work before the Oireachtas
Joint Committee on the Environment, Community and Local
Government, demonstrating the important link between
independent regulation and Oireachtas scrutiny.
The commission's work to date has demonstrated the importance
and impact of independent, economic regulation. In setting
performance standards for the utility, the CER has announced
that it will conduct a partial overall performance assessment of
Irish Water to incentivise the utility to improve its performance in
areas such as service delivery. The company will be required to
publish the performance results. This will incentivise the
company to improve its performance through a set of key
metrics, for example, customer service scores, drinking water
standards and environmental compliance. An overall performance
assessment will commence from the beginning of the first full
revenue review period in 2017.
The CER has also demonstrated its independence in its
examination of Irish Water's establishment and operational costs
as well as its capital plans. It rejected 5% of proposed
establishment costs, 14% of operational costs and has set an
overall reduction in costs of 8.2%. Operational costs will have to
come down by 7% per annum, and the same level of efficiency
will be required in respect of non-committed capital costs. These
cost reductions are aimed at ensuring Irish Water's customers
pay charges only to cover reasonable costs on the system.
Important safeguards such as this are evidence of the role
regulation plays in protecting consumers and ensuring that there
are consequences when Irish Water's performance standards
drop. The establishment of Irish Water is a critical long-term
project for this country and an absolute economic necessity. It
will become among the largest utilities in the history of the State
and is necessary for a safe and secure supply of water into the
future. There is some way to go before we have the world class
water system the public deserves but we have already achieved
much progress during this ambitious programme of reform. For
example, as a result of the establishment of Irish Water, by
Christmas of this year boil water notices in parts of Roscommon
will be lifted for the first time in 12 years. I am sure this
development will be welcomed by everyone in the House. Why it
did not happen previously is beyond me. Over the next two
years, there will be an average annual increase of 100 million in
investment in water services infrastructure in the State.
One of the less commented on consequences of reform, but a
fundamental and a positive one, has been the increased focus on
water quality and standards. As the public prepares to pay for
water services, it will expect even higher standards, and rightly
so. I can assure the House that a key driver for Irish Water, the
Commission and my Department, is the continual improvement
in customer service and quality. Irish Water and I accept that
customer service to date has not been good and steps to address
this will be taken. More resources have been diverted to the Irish
Water call centre. It is currently handling approximately 10,000
calls a day and the average waiting time has been reduced to
three minutes. It is expected that by the end of the week in
excess of 750,000 responses under the registration process will
have been received by Irish Water, the vast majority of these
being registering customers. The level of registrations is
consistent with previous experience of the pace of registration in
respect of the household charge and septic tank registration.
Today, the CER indicated that it is considering extending the
deadline. Previous experience suggests that there will be a rush
of registrations towards the end of the registration period. I
accept that Irish Water must do more to facilitate queries from
elected representatives of all political parties, be they Oireachtas
Members or local councillors. Steps will be taken urgently to
address this issue.
In overall terms, an organisational reinvigoration of customer
engagement within Irish Water is required. The complex nature
of the charging system has led to confusion and frustration. I will
be working with Ervia and Irish Water to address these issues
and to give customers certainty and clarity with regard to what
they will be paying. This must be done immediately. I believe
reform of the boards of Ervia and Irish Water will offer an
opportunity to reinvigorate the organisation and give it a much
stronger customer face.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
(Interruptions).
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
8:40 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

One speaker at a time please.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

I know the man well. He is a good man. Irish Water must engage
with its customers in a new way and with a new style. The brand
of Irish Water must be repositioned in the public mind.
Despite some protests, the metering programme is being
successfully rolled out, with some 458,000 meters already
installed, which will benefit overall water conservation and allow
customers to manage their usage. It is important to remember
the reason Government authorised the most ambitious metering
programme of its kind. Metered charges are the fairest form of
water charges. In metering 1.1 million homes under the first
phase of the domestic metering programme, we are linking
usage with cost recovery. The OECD has stated that usage-based
charging is the fairest form of charging. The Government agrees.
Through metering, customers can manage and control their
water usage more effectively. International evidence suggests
metering can reduce customer usage by 10% to 15%. Customers
and Irish Water can also tackle leakage through the domestic
metering programme. It is believed that at least 5% of the 49%
of leakage in the water distribution network is on the customer
side. Installing meters helps identify customer side leakage and
will help Irish Water to achieve its objective of halving the
national leakage level.
Under the domestic metering programme spanning the country, a
meter is installed every 30 seconds. No other country is metering
on such a scale. The programme is providing 1,300 people with
employment, 84% of whom are from one of three social inclusion
categories: the unemployed; employees of SMEs; graduates or
school leavers or apprentices. This far exceeds the Government's
target of 25%, set in February last year. The domestic metering
programme is providing much needed employment across the
length and breadth of the country, representing the kind of
economic stimulus and infrastructural investment for which many
on the Opposition benches and elsewhere have been calling.
Irish Water has already demonstrated the benefits a more
national approach to water services and infrastructure a national
utility can produce. It has placed greater focus on deficiencies
within the water system such as leakage, water quality, lead
piping and infrastructural planning. It has adopted a new
approach to asset management, in particular central strategic
planning based on accurate asset performance data. It wants to
plan investment consistently across the asset base rather than on
large scale, one-off investments. An example of this is the
proposed Ringsend waste water treatment plant upgrade, an
alternative approach to a treatment plant extension which will
save the company 170 million in capital investment.
Irish Water is also working on the centralisation of procurement
of supplies such as chemicals and energy sources, which will
result in significant savings for the company. Its 2014 to 2017
transformation plan, agreed with the local authorities in the
context of the service level agreements, contains new initiatives
in the areas of standardised, digitised systems for work and asset
management and inventory management capability.
I would like to turn now to the issue of the funding model for
Irish Water. As I outlined earlier, water services and
infrastructure have been underfunded for many years. This is no
longer tenable. The Government has agreed on a funding model
that will allow subvention of Irish Water to help the public offset
some of the direct cost of funding water services, while also
designing the model in a way that allows Irish Water to operate
commercially. This will allow Irish Water to borrow money for
capital expenditure from capital markets and should see an
increase in capital expenditure averaging 100 million in each of
the years 2015 and 2016, in comparison to some 350 million
this year. An increase in capital investment is one of the
objectives of the Government's reform programme. We will
achieve this next year.
As in other OECD countries, domestic water charges form an
important part of the funding model for water services. Over the
years ahead, economic regulation will drive operational
efficiencies in water services to ensure that charges remain
affordable for customers. It was important for the Government to
set parameters for this regulatory period to guide the transition
from the old funding model to the new regime, and particularly to
focus on affordability. The subvention to Irish Water ensures that
the Government's objective of the average charge being less
than 240 per annum is achieved. Some 537 million will be
provided to Irish Water in 2015, in the main to cover the free
allowances.
The Government recognises that the poorest and most marginal
in society must be protected from water poverty. Water poverty
is a real challenge of which we must all remain acutely aware. To
this end, the Government is providing a number of significant
protections and reliefs to assist households in meeting their
charges, including the provision to every household in the
country of a free allowance of 30,000 litres per year; an
additional free allowance to cover the normal consumption of
water supplied and wastewater treated per child in primary
residencies in the State; the capping of charges for people with
high water usage due to certain medical conditions; a 100 water
support payment for all recipients of the household benefits
package; and free fuel allowance and water charges income tax
relief at the standard rate on water charges up to a maximum of
500 per household per year. This will provide relief of up to
100 per household per annum when claimed in the following
year and the Government is examining what support can be
made available for those who are not entitled to income tax relief
or the water support payment. For social and environmental
reasons, there is no standing charge on domestic water charges.
This will benefit those living on their own.
In addition, the exceptional needs payment system will continue
to be available for people experiencing severe financial
difficulties.
The introduction of a new charge is difficult for any household,
and the Government instructed the regulator in July to provide
certain supports to ensure ease of transition. An important
support provided for in the regulator's decision is the capping of
charges at the unmetered rate for the first nine months of
charging. Metered homes have now an incentive to reduce usage
since 1 October as their bills can be lower than the assessed level
but in recognition of the challenge in changing behaviour and
usage patterns, bills will not be higher than the relevant assessed
level for those nine months.
The regulator was also instructed to provide for retrospective
adjustment of charges, including provision for a rebate, if
assessed bills are higher than metered usage would warrant.
As stated earlier, Irish Water is also expected to implement a free
first fix policy early next year. This will help those households
with leaks to address problems that can cause significant
customer-side wastage of water. The Government is providing
51 million in funding for this scheme, on which the regulator will
hold a public consultation shortly. In the interim there will be
supports to ensure that households identified through the
domestic metering programme as ones with leakages will have
their bills capped until the issue of leakage is comprehensively
addressed.
Through the various supports and reliefs available from
Government, I believe that a fair, equitable and affordable
charging system is being produced.
It is critical that Irish Water performs as the Oireachtas and the
public expect. Government recognises a number of concerns
have arisen in the context of getting Irish Water fully up and
running and will move to address these - none more so than the
complexity of the charging regime.
As stated earlier, the establishment of a unified Ervia-Irish Water
board presents an opportunity to reinvigorate the organisation to
become significantly more customer focused in its operations and
communications. The Ervia Group and Irish Water are actively
reviewing their communication strategy to reflect better the
needs of all stakeholders, including elected Members.
I also recognise that the particular pay model in the Ervia Group
has been the subject of much comment. This model, which was
applied by Ervia rather than being created by Irish Water itself,
provides for part of salaries to be placed at risk and this element
of pay is only earned subject to performance. One of the first
actions I will be asking the new board to do is to review the
application and operation of this model in Irish Water, particularly
in its start-up phase.
I would like to add one more detail. There were reports at the
weekend of in excess of 188 charges for a second call-out after
people have had their first leak fixed for free through Irish
Water's first fix policy. I would like to express a personal
view-----
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
8:50 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Oireachtas source
A personal view.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

You are the Minister.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Sorry, Deputy Cowen, no one interrupted you, to be fair. One
speaker please.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

-----that I believe this is too expensive but again I point out, as
stated previously, that this has not been finalised and it will be
subject to the approval, as everyone knows, of CER. I also point
out that the use of such services is not mandatory.
As the system of charging and water services delivery through a

national utility beds down there will be an ongoing need for
accountability and scrutiny within this House and the Seanad of
Irish Water's performance and its actions.
Deputy Cowen's motion calls for full Oireachtas scrutiny of Irish

Water. This level of scrutiny is already in place-----
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Oireachtas source
Do not read it-----
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

-----through parliamentary questions, engagement between Irish
Water and elected representatives on an individual level-----
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Oireachtas source
Stop, please.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Thank you.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

-----and at the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment,
Culture and the Gaeltacht.
This scrutiny is in addition to the various forms of accountability
that Irish Water is subject to including the submission of an
annual report on the performance of its functions to the Minister
for the Environment, Community and Local Government; the
laying before the Oireachtas of the company's annual report and
accounts; approval by the Minister for the Environment,
Community and Local Government of a 25 year water services
strategic plan; and the power of direction, held by the Minister
for the Environment, Community and Local Government, towards
Irish Water in relation to the performance of its functions.
Last year's Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013 also requires Irish
Water to consult with the Commission for Energy Regulation,
CER, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and each local
authority and regional body before submitting the 25 year
strategic plan, and on capital plans, to consult with the EPA,
regional authorities and planning authorities for which the plan is
relevant.
Irish Water has responded to 4,700 individual queries from
elected representatives on a range of issues since its specific e-
mail facilities were put in place. However, I know that Members
are dissatisfied with the effectiveness of the current arrangement
and I have been engaged with Irish Water to ensure that a more
comprehensive, responsive system is put in place, given the
overall extent of queries. New arrangements in this regard will be
communicated to Members in a week or so.
These important safeguards on accountability and consultation
with elected representatives and State agencies reflect a new
water services framework that is designed to remain in public
ownership. I want to be perfectly clear on this issue - Irish Water
will always remain in public ownership. The Government stated
this at the start of its water reforms, it has stated it throughout
the reform programme and it has demonstrated it through
enshrining it in law. The law of this land does not allow Irish
Water to be privatised.
While I welcome the chance to debate the details of water
charges and aspects of Irish Water's operations, it is
disappointing that the Opposition has not sought to articulate any
vision for where it would like to see water services in the future,
through its budget submission, for example.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Oireachtas source
That was not in the script.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
The Government, on the other hand, has a vision. It is a vision
for a country in which every household connected to public water
supplies has a high quality, reliable water supply and has
established a relationship with this new, national utility that is
based on customer service, reliability and good communications.
It is a vision for an adequately funded water and wastewater
system in which the necessary funding is obtained to upgrade
public water supplies, have low leakage levels and adequate
levels of waste water treatment to keep our rivers, lakes and
coastal waters free of pollution, helping to maintain Ireland's
image as a clean, green country that continues to attract a
growing number of tourists.
The vision includes a security of quality water supply through
effective services, quality asset management and significant
investment so that Ireland is seen as a water secure country in
the future, notwithstanding the challenges of a rising population,
economic recovery and climate change, and a water secure
country in a context where the global scenario is heading towards
demand exceeding supply by 40%. It is a vision in which
Ireland's security of supply will guarantee current and future
competitiveness for industries such as agrifood, ICT and pharma-
chem, which combined, provide well over 200,000 water
intensive jobs in Ireland. It is a security of supply that will attract
further water intensive industries to Ireland as other countries
experience growing water shortages, creating further prosperity
into the future.
I accept fully that there is much that remains to be done to see
that vision fully realised, but it is a vision this Government is
committed to realising. Establishment and effective operation is
an essential part of realising that vision, and any issues that
need to be addressed along the way towards realising that vision
in full will be dealt with effectively and immediately.
Government is committed to giving clarity and certainty to
people surrounding their water bills. This is absolutely going to
happen. From both Ervia and Irish Water, I am expecting a
reinvigoration in customer focus and to establish a much stronger
relationship with the public and stakeholders. There has to be a
seismic shift across the range of Irish Water activities. Put simply,
this Government will reposition Irish Water in the public minds,
and I expect this to happen immediately.
The question has been put to me in recent days about confidence
in senior management of Irish Water. I am expecting them to
deliver major changes in a short period of time and I have
confidence both in the boards of Irish Water and Ervia, and their
management teams, but I am demanding that they deliver.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Oireachtas source
That was not in the script.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Thank you, Deputy.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Deputy Martin is very funny.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Oireachtas source
No, I am not. That was not in the script.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

The Minister to conclude please.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Oireachtas source
The Government rewrote that script today. The Minister could not
say that yesterday.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Deputy Martin-----
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Tonight's debate is an important opportunity for all sides of this
House to support this vision.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

He is the big man's man.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

It is an opportunity for the House to end the negative criticism
that offers no solutions or constructive ideas. Let us get behind
this ambitious, far-reaching reform programme and focus on the
long-term benefits for all of us and for future generations
through a water utility of which we can all be proud.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

I call Deputy Brian Stanley who is sharing time with Deputy
Pearse Doherty.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
9:00 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)Link to this: Individually | In

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject. It is a timely
debate. The Minister said that he is demanding that the board of
Uisce ireann pull up its socks and he has set out certain things
for it to do. Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Fianna Fil have all
supported pushing water services out of democratic control, away
from the Oireachtas and local councils. That is why we are in this
situation. There is huge anger over the level of bonuses. It does
not encourage confidence in the company, despite the review of
communications announced this afternoon. To make matters
worse, it was revealed today that fewer than one third of
householders have filled in and returned the forms containing
their personal public service numbers and other details. That
means more than 1 million people have not returned their forms,
which has forced Irish Water to seek an extension of the period
for return of the forms to the end of November.
Given the level of anger at the bonuses, the water metering,
general incompetence and lack of clarity, it is not difficult to see
why those million or so households are not encouraged to comply
within this extended period. The Government should use that
time to implement a thorough review of its plan for Irish Water,
address the concerns that have arisen about it and pay heed to
the many people who regard it as a disaster.
The Fianna Fil motion details some of the huge costs incurred in
the establishment of Irish Water. Further sums will be made
available in 2015. The Estimates we received prior to the
announcement of the budget detail a further 200 million to be
given as a capital contribution to Irish Water. One of the Ministers
might inform us what exactly that is because in previous years
we have not been able to get that detail.
The costs are far higher than we were led to believe they would
be when the Government pushed through the legislation to
establish Irish Water, from the high salaries of top executives to
bonus payments, consultancy fees and the establishment of call
centres. Government party Deputies have complained about this
in the past week or two, but they seem to forget that they
rammed through the legislation on the eve of Christmas and
those of us who tabled amendments to try to knock the rough
edges off it were shouted down and told we were negative.
Everyone wanted to get home for Christmas, the legislation was
rammed through and they went away leaving a mess behind.
The bonus payments have come under scrutiny since last
weekend and are not justified given the shambles that Irish
Water has proved to be. The managers gave themselves huge
bonus payments, up to 19% for senior management. There was
4% for ordinary workers who exceeded the targets. Senior
management took 14% for meeting targets but gave only 1.5%
for those on less than 40,000, a lower percentage of a lower
amount for the peasants. Their game is very clear.
When asked about it today, the Commission for Energy
Regulation said this was a matter for the board of Irish Water.
The Minister should take heed because the Government has
handed over control of this very important resource and service.
It has disempowered the 31 new reformed local authorities, this
House and itself. What did we get for the 80 million paid to
consultants? Local authority and private rental tenants are in a
mess, while some meters are substandard. Surely the
consultants should have been able to figure out these problems
when paid that sort of money. We were led to believe that the
Uisce ireann contract was awarded to Bord Gis, the Mammy
and Daddy, because it had all the engineering skills and a
background in rolling out a utility service. We thought there was
a logic to that argument, but we discovered, courtesy of John
Tierney, the managing director of Irish Water, that all this money
had been blown on consultants. Why were they needed if
Mammy and Daddy, Bord Gis, already had these skills? I would
love to hear the answer to that question. It has never been
explained by Irish Water or the Government.
What does the call centre do? Is it observing a radio silence? A
member of the public spent seven days trying to get through to
it. This person is on the phone most days in the line of work but
could not have a call returned or answered. The same applies to
the Oireachtas helpline, which, although it may be a bit faster,
poses serious difficulties. People are receiving forms addressed to
previous occupants of households and there are problems with
databases.
While I realise that a new system will have problems the scale of
the problem is huge. A massive number of people have come to
my constituency office about this, and that is just my small
corner of the world. We Deputies can relate to this because it is
similar to the Health Service Executive which responds by saying
that our questions have been received and will be responded to
in due course. I am not attacking those at the other end of the
telephone line because I suspect that in most cases they do not
have the answer. They are fronting for the geniuses behind the
scenes who have set up this structure.
What will happen at the end of 2016, when the current
allowances, the rate per litre, and the household and child
allowances will be reviewed, along with the rebate to people on
social welfare and the tax credits? What will be the level of
household charges then? The regulator has said that the average
charge without subvention will be 594 and could be higher,
given how Uisce ireann is spending money. Will the EU
framework directive be used to ram that average charge down
the throats of taxpayers? The allowances and budget concessions
were conceived as a means to get people through a general
election, especially the comrades in the Labour Party. What will
happen after the general election late next year or in early 2016?
I call on the Government to go back to the drawing board with
this project which was ill-conceived. It is no harm for the
Government to admit it went down the wrong road. We can all
make mistakes. This was a huge mistake. Unfortunately, the
Government did not listen to the advice from this side of the
House or from economists and others involved in governance
who critically questioned it. The Governments colleagues in local
government have been questioning it this week in their council
chambers. They claim to be in revolt because they are getting a
pasting from the electorate about it. The Government has taken
away democracy.
There are some examples in other countries of services being
taken out of the hands of corporate structures and put back
under the remit of local councils and municipalities.
There is precedent for that. The Government has gone down the
wrong road in this case. This is a monster that cannot be
handled. This is not the ESB. This is not Bord na Mna. This is
not the old Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It is none of
those. This is a different baby that the Government has created.
It has turned into a monster and it needs to be stopped in its
gallop.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
9:10 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)Link to this: Individually

I was listening to the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, talking about
his grand vision. He repeatedly used the word "vision". It struck
me that I was listening to a Labour Party Minister in a Labour
Party-Fine Gael Government. I was wondering what the founding
father of the labour movement would have thought of his vision.
The vision the Minister spoke about in this Chamber is different
from the vision that many ordinary people in this State have. As
they see it, a Labour Party Minister is imposing additional charges
on people who are already struggling to pay for the austerity
measures that were imposed on them by this Government and its
predecessor, which was led by Fianna Fil. The vision they fear is
the bill from Irish Water dropping through their letterboxes next
January. They are wondering which they will have to compromise
on over the next few months in order to pay the Irish Water bill.
That is the vision of the Labour Party. That was the vision of the
Minister, Deputy Kelly, when he stood up proudly in the Chamber
this evening. That is the problem with all of this. It was the
problem with the Fianna Fil motion. It is not surprising that
Fianna Fil is wobbling on this issue, while sticking to its
principles of imposing a water tax on people who cannot afford
such a tax even though they have been paying for water through
general taxation for many decades.
The Government does not understand that people are saying
they simply do not have the money to pay for water. Regardless
of what way the Government asks for it, or what way it dresses
this up, people simply do not have the money. It is simply not
there. It is another burden that will be placed on people. It really
surprises me that this Government got out of touch with the
public so quickly. We experienced the same thing in the last
Administration, when a Government led by Fianna Fil was
completely out of touch with ordinary people. Its members were
living in their own bubble or silo. They were completely unaware
of what was happening. This Government has become
spectacularly out of touch with people within a very short period
of time. It fails to understand where people are at. It fails to
understand that people are asking chemists which of their
medications they really need because they cannot afford the
prescription charges for them all. It fails to understand that
people are homeless because they cannot afford to rent houses.
An individual who contacted me yesterday has been homeless for
14 days because the bank took possession of his house. He
cannot get any emergency accommodation. He was being kept in
bed and breakfasts and hotels, but the local authority has said it
cannot do that anymore. The Government is failing to understand
where people are at.
Deputy Stanley referred to Irish Water as a "monster" that has
been created. The Government washed its hands of the payment
of 80 million to consultants by saying that the former Minister,
Phil Hogan, is over in Europe now. The Government and the
Taoiseach claim to have nothing to do with the bonus culture
within Irish Water. When the Taoiseach and the Labour Party
were on this side of the House, they rightly decried the bonus
culture within the banks. The Government of the day was forced
to introduce a protocol which said that no bonuses could be paid.
Indeed, in cases of contractual bonuses that could not be
scuppered or cancelled, a clawback measure was included in the
Finance Bill to apply to any bonus that might be paid. This is
possible if the political will is there. Some new revelations in this
regard came out today, as they are doing every day. We learned
that information given to Irish Water in confidence about people
who are willing to pay these water charges was given to third
parties. We know of at least ten individuals whose bank details
were given to landlords. In all sincerity, who in their right mind
would give personal details to Irish Water, in light of the manner
in which it has abused very sensitive information so far?
The Taoiseach misleads the Dil time and time again when he
says that every child in the State will have a free water
allocation. I would like to nail this one to the mast and show it for
what it is. Only children who are in receipt of child benefit will get
the free water allowance. Some categories of children will not get
it. As early school leavers - 16 and 17 year olds - do not get child
benefit, they will not get the free water allowance. Returning
emigrants who cannot satisfy the habitual residency clause will
not get the allowance. Children whose parents work in the North
or in another European jurisdiction and do not get a top-up of
child benefit will not get the allowance. This is not hypothetical. I
know of a family in Letterkenny, with four children consuming
water, on which a charge of an additional 408 will be imposed.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Thank you, Deputy. I ask you to conclude.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

I could go on about the mn t and other issues. The Government
is unwilling to listen.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Thank you, Deputy. Your time is up.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

It needs to listen to the people, take notice of the right to water
marches that will take place in every village and town, and scrap
the water charges.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
You are eating into other Members' time.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Socialist Party)Link to this: Individually

I would like to share time with Deputy Fitzmaurice.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Is that agreed? Agreed.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

There has been a lot of talk in the last few days about
communication problems. I am sure many people at home will
have been very reassured to hear the Minister, Deputy Kelly,
saying earlier that "the brand of Irish Water must be repositioned
in the public mind". That will ease people's worries about their
inability to pay the water charges. Apparently, the problem is
simply that Irish Water has insufficiently communicated how
grateful we all should be to pay 500 a year for water, on top of
what we already pay. We are being told that if we pay water
charges, investment in water infrastructure will automatically
increase. We know that the opposite happened in Britain.
Contrary to the experience with bin charges and despite people's
widespread instinctive understanding, it has been suggested that
if water charges are implemented, water charges will not
increase and privatisation will not inevitably flow. I would like to
make it clear to the Government that it is not the manner in
which the latest austerity robbery is taking place that is the real
problem. The real problem is the robbery itself. Irish Water, with
all the powers it has, is the Frankenstein creation of the
Government. Its specific purpose is to impose this bondholders'
charge on people and to prepare for privatisation. The
communications problem here is a problem of the Government,
which is wilfully refusing to listen to the 100,000 people who took
to the streets on the Saturday before last, to the people who
voted in the by-elections earlier this month, or to the 1 million
people, representing two thirds of households, who have refused
to send back the so-called application pack.
I would like to spell out the message clearly. Working people
across the country do not want these water charges. They do not
want some false concessions that will be taken away in the
future. They do not want a temporary postponement that will be
used to prepare for a more vigorous imposition of these charges
in the future. They are demanding the abolition of these water
charges and the disbandment of Irish Water. All the indications
are that they are prepared to mobilise to achieve that demand. It
is extremely significant that 1 million Irish Water forms are still
outstanding. There is talk of extending the deadline, but it has
already been extended. It was extended on 30 September by the
Commission for Energy Regulations in its documents. It is simply
a ruse to try to get people into the system. The Government and
Irish Water are running scared on this issue. Those who have
received the Irish Water forms at home should take confidence.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

I thank the Deputy.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

They should tear them up. They should send them back in
protest.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

If we refuse to register and refuse to pay, we will beat these
water charges.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

I ask the Deputy to respect the House. That type of gesture is
inappropriate in the House.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)Link to this: Individually | In

It is very respectful-----
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

It is not, Deputy Higgins.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

-----to bring the concerns of 1 million householders in here.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Thank you, Deputy Higgins. You are here long enough to know
the rules of the House as well as I do.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Yes. It is very respectful to bring the concerns of 1 million
householders in here.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)Link to

this: Individually | In context 1415055600, 1488324909 | Oireachtas source
I am not going to harp on about Irish Water. We know that its
public relations set-up and everything else about it has been in
trouble from its very concept. It is really a farce. As I listened to
the debate all night, I heard everybody talking about water. We
have got to realise that if we talk about water as a commodity,
we are going down a dangerous road. The service of water is
what we should be on about. As the chairman of a group water
scheme, I put in meters along with the rest of the committee ten
years ago. We found that to be a great success in conserving
water. The first thing one must do before one talks about
charging for water is get water quality right. When I was in
Cloonfad, Ballaghaderreen, Boyle and Strokestown yesterday
evening, there was not one glass of water. I have often taken
water out of a bog hole to put into a machine that was of a better
quality than the water those people are being asked to drink.
I can see a few problems that need to be addressed straightaway
as part of the whole water debacle.
9 o’clock
People do not want to give their PPS numbers. The Minister

should declare that Jack, Tom, Mary, Keith or whatever the
person's name is fine for filling in the forms.
Proper allowances are needed. After ten years of working on a
voluntary water scheme, the Government has decided to cut the
amount of water that people need to meet their basic human
rights. A family of two adults and two children needs
approximately 140 cu. m. The system's administration will cost a
great deal of money, as it involves the Government spending on
social welfare payments to which people are entitled as well as
on the Revenue staff engaged in it. This is like asking someone to
buy a crashed car for what the full price would be were it fixed.
Another problem came to my attention today. Where there is no
supply of water from Irish Water and people are boring private
wells, a new requirement has been included in their planning
permissions by local councils whereby they must connect to the
network when Irish Water eventually comes to the area. This is
wrong. Account must also be taken of rainwater harvesting. Be it
for six months or a year, the Government should stand back, get
this project right, ensure that people are treated right and listen
to them.
https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2014-10-21a.478&s=
%22ambitious%22+section%3Adebates#g536
Department of Environment, Community
and Local Government
Irish Water Expenditure
end .main
All Written Answers on 23 Sep 2014
Previous answer
Next answer
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Aengus Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)Link to this:

494. To ask the Minister for Environment, Community and
Local Government the amount of the 539 million loan from
the National Pensions Reserve Fund to Uisce ireann that
has been spent to date. [35470/14]
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Local Government the estimated total capital investment
spend on water and sewerage services in 2015; and if he
will provide a breakdown identifying each funding source.
[35473/14]
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

Local Government the amount it will cost to provide water
and sewerage services in 2015; and the anticipated revenue
to be raised respectively through domestic household
charges, non-domestic charges and other streams.
[35474/14]
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

I propose to take Questions Nos. 494, 497 and 498 together.
The establishment of Irish Water is an integral component of the

Governments water sector reform strategy and involves major
organisational change, an entirely new funding structure
governed by economic regulation, the introduction of domestic
water charges based on usage and the roll-out of a national
domestic metering programme. Bord Gis ireann (BGE) had
responsibility for most of the deliverables under the Government
water sector reform implementation strategy including the
establishment of a fully functioning integrated public water utility
and the roll-out of the national domestic water metering
programme (the estimated cost of the metering programme is
539m excluding VAT). Some 250m in loan finance has been
advanced to Irish Water to date by the National Pensions Reserve
Fund in order to finance this expenditure.
The Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) has recently

reviewed the Irish Water submission in relation to its costs over
the regulatory review period, which runs from 1 October 2014 to
the end of 2016, to ensure that only efficient costs are recovered
from customers. This will result in an allowed revenue for Irish
Water of 2,078million over the period. Irish Water has published
its proposed Capital Investment Plan 2014-2016 and this is
available online at
Irish Water will fund its activities with revenue from a number of
sources including domestic and non-domestic water charges,
Government subvention, commercial borrowing and equity
investment. Domestic water charges will commence with effect
from 1 October 2014 and Irish Water will issue the first bills to
domestic customers from January 2015. The approach to
charging was outlined by Irish Water in their Water Charges Plan
(WCP) submitted to the CER in line with the provisions of the
Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013.
As part of the CERs recent consultation process on the Irish

Water WCP it proposed a range of domestic tariffs which would
result in an average annual charge of 238 per household. The
amount billed to domestic customers for the year 2015 based on
this charging structure would be in the order of 300 million and
the amount billed to non-domestic customers would be some
230 million.
The CER is currently reviewing submissions received during the

consultation and a final determination on water charges will be
made by the CER later this month. Full details of the CER public
consultation are available on .
Irish Water has confirmed to my Department that it has

established a dedicated team to deal with representations and
queries from public representatives. The team can be contacted
via email to
or by telephone on 1890 278 278.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2014-09-23a.1331&s=
%2235470%2F14%22+section%3Awrans#g1332.q
Thoughts on the funding of water

services
Posted on November 05, 2014 by Tom McDonnell
Next week the NERI will be holding a seminar on the topical

issue of water charges (detail are here). In advance of the
seminar, this blog provides some thoughts on funding water
services in Ireland.
Access to clean and affordable water is a human right. Yet
there is no such thing as free water. On an annual basis, the
provision of water and wastewater services costs in excess of
1 billion. Water is difficult to transport and a consistent and
secure supply of clean water is expensive to provide. Indeed
the provision of water and waste water services requires the
construction, maintenance, operation and improvement of
expensive network infrastructure. The question isnt whether
we should pay for water and wastewater services but how we
should pay for them.
We can pay for water through taxes or tariffs or both. Until
2014 water and waste water services for domestic users were
mainly paid for out of monies raised from general taxation (e.g.
VAT and income tax) which was allocated as subsidies from
central government to local governments.
At the moment it appears that the funding model for 2015 is
533 million from the Local Government Fund, 305 million
from domestic water charges and 230 million from non-
domestic (mainly commercial) water charges. In addition, there
will be 222 million allocated as an equity investment by the
Irish government in Irish Water. The equity investment wont
count towards the deficit and wont count for the purposes of
determining Irish Waters total revenue.
Irish Waters estimated 535 million revenue from charges
(305 million + 230 million) exceeds the government
subvention of 533 million and this places Irish Water off the
books. This enables the classification of the 222 million as an
equity investment that doesnt count towards the deficit.
Overall Irish Water will receive circa 1.29 billion in 2015. The
total off-books is 757 million (305 million + 230 million +
222 million) and the total on-books is 533 million.
Spending on water and wastewater will be close to 1.3 billion
in 2015 circa 700 million in operational expenditure and
circa 600 million in capital expenditure.
The improvement in the 2015 deficit arising from the
introduction of domestic water charges appears to be the 757
million less the 230 million in non-domestic charges (which
were an increase in revenue for the purposes of the deficit). If
this is correct, the improvement therefore seems to be around
527 million. This figure does not include the cost of the
various social protection measures introduced to help offset
the burden of water charges (e.g. the increase in the
household benefits package and the new water tax credit).
These measures are collectively well in excess of 100 million.
So who is scheduled to pay for water in 2015? The government
sector (general taxation) is contributing 755 million (58.5%),
the household sector is contributing 305 million (23.6%) and
the non-domestic sector is contributing 230 million (17.8%).
Are water charges fair? Will the current structure increase
poverty? I will discuss these issues at the seminar next
Wednesday
Of course the reality is that this issue is far from resolved.
http://www.nerinstitute.net/blog/2014/11/05/thoughts-on-the-
funding-of-water-services/
Water Charges, Water Poverty and Water Credits
http://www.nerinstitute.net/download/pdf/water_model_inbrief.pdf
Summary
Until October of 2014 water and wastewater services in Ireland
were funded through general taxation with an additional
contribution from commercial rates. Usage based water
charges take effect from October for residential households
and are expected to raise close to 370 million on an annual
basis. Charges based on use should improve water
conservation as well as the economic efficiency of water use.
However, consumption charges are regressive, impact
disproportionately on low income households and raise
affordability concerns. The current system of free allowances is
expensive, poorly targeted and economically inefficient.
Alternative models are described, including a water credit
model to alleviate water poverty, and a zero free allowance
model to generate a more progressive distribution of the cost
of water service provision. These options are discussed in the
context of the current regime; a changed water regime may be
able to more effectively deal with issues of water poverty,
affordability, efficiency and conservation.
Key Points
c Water policy pursues multiple objectives. These include
affordability and social concerns, environmental sustainability,
financial sustainability and economic efficiency.
c Moving the funding model from general taxation to user
charges reduces the progressivity of the overall system of
taxes and benefits, and raises issues of water affordability and
water poverty.
c Using universal free allowances to reduce the average
tariff level over the population is costly and reduces the scope
for targeted affordability measures for lower income groups.
c The most economically efficient way to protect vulnerable
households and to prevent hardship is to supplement the
capacity to pay of low-income households through direct cash
transfers or some other income supplement.
In the longer-term the universal free allowance
system should be completely replaced by a system of income
related water credits. This would best protect low income
households.
http://www.nerinstitute.net/research/water-charges-water-poverty-
and-water-credits/
Inequality" category An Irish Wealth Tax Posted on December 21,
2016
http://www.fiscalcouncil.ie/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/FAR_301116_Final.pdf
Slides from NERI Seminar- Summary of Social Housing Assessments

2016 Posted on February 28, 2017
https://www.housingagency.ie/Housing/media/Media/Publications/Su
mmary-of-Social-Housing-Assessment-Needs-2016.pdf
Apple case points up even more serious issues, Innovative
Competence, How does the Republic of Ireland Fare and does it
Matter? Posted on February 24, 2017
http://www.nerinstitute.net/download/pdf/innovation_working_paper.
pdf?issuusl=ignore
Apple case points up even more

serious issues
Posted on February 24, 2017
Tom Healy, Director NERI

Which Government, when offered the chance and opportunity
to take in 13 billion in additional tax revenues declined the
offer and, instead commenced a lengthy and potentially costly
legal appeal to contest this? You guessed. With 13billion a
society broken and fractured by years of lopsided fiscal
austerity could do a lot of things like:
c Establish a European class early childhood care system.
c Abolish homelessness (yes it can be done and has been done).
c Establish a single-tier public and free-at-the-point-of entry
European National Health Service.
c Invest in a European class water infrastructure to update the
creaking 19th century piping system feeding into our major
cities.
And more besides
It is not suggested, here, that the Government did not want
13 billion extra in revenue (think of all the tax cuts that many
would like to see implemented!). Rather, such is the passion,
conviction and vulnerability of Consensus Ireland in relation to
the matter of corporate tax in general and the infamous Apple
case, in particular, that not only the Government of the day but
a broad swathe of political and public opinion is firmly on the
side of contesting the European Commission on this much to
the amazement and consternation of many including senior
European politicians. The view taken by many, in Ireland, is
that potentially huge sums of money by way of a windfall
receipts may be sacrificed on the altar of Irish corporate tax
policy and practice. That this is so points to a deep unease in
Irish enterprise policy. Why do we place so much reliance on
tax policy when we are likely to be fighting a losing battle as
the new realities of Trump, Brexit and tax competition spread
everywhere? Not to be outdone, a leading politician in Northern
Ireland has recently advocated a 10% corporate tax in
Northern Ireland to undercut a 12.5% proposed by others for
the whole island of Ireland. Are there any takers on the
southern side of the border for a lower than 10% rate? Why not
0%? The consistent argument of the new Right since the
1980s is that tax cuts pay for themselves by stimulating more
economic activity, effort and enterprise (a claim largely
unsubstantiated by the empirical evidence).
However, two commendations are in order:
To the Irish Government for recently convening a High-level
Multi-stakeholder Dialogue on the theme of Corporate Tax:
Fairness, Responsibility and Leadership
To the European Commission and Margrethe Westager,
European Commissioner, on Competition and her hard-working
and courageous team of experts and officials in pursuing the
matter of State Aid.
There ends the commendations!
The elaborate, complex and immoral practice of tax avoidance
by large multinational companies is well known and
documented. The use of elaborate and confusing arguments by
the defenders of such tax avoidance to defend the indefensible
is also well known and documented. The matter which
concerns Irish policy makers and the general public is not
whether this is moral or not (clearly it is immoral because such
practices deprive citizens in many parts of the globe vital
resources to meet vital public service needs and social
investment). What concerns public interest, here, is whether or
not the relevant Irish public authorities were complicit, under
European law, in facilitating unfavourable tax treatment. The
issue is not about tax competition per se. Rather, through
special arrangements, it is claimed, the Irish Government was
complicit in favouring a particular firm over others. This would
be against European competition law. In case it might be
thought that the European Commission is out to get Ireland
because of ulterior motivations stemming from certain large
Member State envy or Ireland general approach on corporate
tax it must be pointed out that the Commission has targeted
other egregious cases of tax avoiding behaviour implicating
countries such as Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands
(see Fair Competition and a level playing field ). A potentially
dangerous development would be the invasion of British
Eurosceptic tabloid claims about Franco-German hegemony
over little nations. If there is at least one positive aspect of the
European Union it lies in its capacity to coordinate at
international level laws and rules about these matters. In the
absence of a multilateral and multinational approach the
multinational will continue to run rings around national
governments and tax authorities taking advantage of every
loophole and difference in tax provision to avoid paying tax.
Three cheers for the European Union on the issue of corporate
tax, state aid under the guise of selective tax treatment and
coordinated action to harmonise the tax base. The final
decision of the European Commission (which is extremely
difficult to find on the web is here ).
BEPS?
But what about the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS)
initiative of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD)? Is not this an adequate approach and
one in which most countries including Ireland are bought into?
BEPS is not without its critics. Some argue that it does not go
far enough, quickly enough and evenly. But, it is a start. The
stated aim of BEPS is to allocate the corporate tax base in a
fair and transparent way to properly reflect the location of a
given economic activity. However, BEPS had no legal binding.
This is where a body such as the EU has the potential to make
a difference (especially as the UK is almost surely exiting).
Reputation counts
A critical factor in future enterprise policy, in Ireland, is the
issue of reputation. Whatever the arguments (and it will be
argued that the problem is not Irelands but that of the US and
other countries who have not reformed their tax laws) it is
clear that Ireland Inc. has taken a battering on the issue of tax.
This is not good for political good will and long-term strategic
alliances. The point should not be missed especially as much
will be on the negotiating table over the next 24 months ahead
of Brexit2019.
A cynic might comment that if only the public authorities, here,
were as passionate and diligent about resisting EU
encroachments on our fiscal and banking policy in 2008-2013
as it is now about facing down the EU commission on
something that appears morally indefensible (whatever the
legal, technical and political arguments) then we would be in a
better position. The real game is not what worked in the past.
It is the need to develop a strong, export-oriented, high-
productivity, high-skill and resilient domestic enterprise sector.
Notwithstanding spectacular successes in a number of sectors
and firms we are still left with what I call the weak link in Irish
capitalism the dominance of low-productivity enterprises with
a insufficient capacity to capture world market niches in areas
such as food, energy and business services. Turning this
situation around and adopting a plan B enterprise strategy to
see us through the first half of this century will take years of
work, preparation, capacity-building, mind-set adapting and
changes in the way enterprises are run. This is the boring year-
in year out stuff and is much less newsworthy than the latest
big numbers scandal or upcoming marginal budgetary changes
within some notional fiscal space that could evaporate as
quickly as GDP bounces back or forward with one company
reshoring its intellectual property. An example of much needed
forward strategic enterprise thinking is contained, for example,
in the recent NERI Working Paper published by my colleague,
Dr Tom McDonnell [Innovative Competence, How does the
Republic of Ireland fare and does it Matter?]
The official line of defence on Apple continues to be that it has
nothing to do with us. In brief, the claim is that the Irish
branches of Apple Sales International (ASI)
and Apple Operations Europe (AOE) merely carried out routine
functions and all important decisions were made by Apple in
the USA. Taxes were levied by the Irish authorities on profits
attributable to ASI and AOE and not profits that were stateless
or properly attributable to Apple activities in the US.
The European Commission line is summarised as follows:
the tax rulings issued by Ireland endorsed an artificial
allocation of Apple Sales International and Apple Operations
Europe's sales profits to their "head offices", where they were
not taxed. As a result, the tax rulings enabled Apple to pay
substantially less tax than other companies, which is illegal
under EU state aid rules.
As the Taoiseach said on 1st February concerning Apple:
It is a subject of a court process at European level and will go
on for a number of years.
http://www.nerinstitute.net/blog/2017/02/24/apple-case-points-up-
even-more-serious-issues/
Fairness and the fight for equal opportunities

are fundamentals in Europe. We like
competition when it is fair and based on the
merits: the quality of your product, the prices
and the services you give. That is why the
Single Market of more than 500 million
potential customers is so attractive - it is an
open and level playing field and you have a
fair chance of making it if you play by the
rules. And for those who do not play by the
rules we are even-handed and enforce EU
competition law consistently. And we are
both the European Commission and the
national competition authorities.
An important part of our European
competition law is state aid control. By
enforcing EU state aid rules, the Commission
plays a key role in enabling a level playing
field. State aid control has been part of our
common rulebook since the very beginning,
when EU member countries signed the
original Treaty of Rome back in 1957. And
these rules apply to all companies that do
business in the EUs Single Market, regardless
of size, sector or nationality.
The goal is clear: national governments
cannot distort competition in the EU Single
Market by giving an unfair competitive
advantage to a particular company that its
rivals cannot enjoy. State aid rules protect
fair competition based on merits and
European taxpayers.
Following its in-depth investigation of two tax
rulings issued by Ireland to Apple, the
Commission concluded last month that these
rulings gave Apple a selective advantage
over other companies. It artificially reduced
the tax bill of two Irish Apple companies. This
is illegal State aid.
Apple now has to pay the unpaid tax since
2003, which amounts to up to 13 billion,
plus interest. This does not penalise the
company in question with a retroactive fine
but simply restores equal treatment with
other companies and so a level playing field
for competition.
We have also concluded investigations
concerning tax rulings in Luxembourg
regarding Fiat, the Netherlands regarding
Starbucks and a scheme in Belgium
benefitting 35 mostly European companies.
In those cases, too, we found that a select
few were given a more favourable tax
treatment than others.
Of course, Member States can design their
own tax systems and set their corporate tax
rates. State aid rules do not interfere with
this right. What is at stake here is the equal
treatment of companies. In this context, it
does not matter whether the advantage
takes the form of a subsidy or a reduced tax
bill. Indeed, the Commission has taken a
series of tax state aid decisions addressed to
Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
Spain, Sweden and the UK stretching back to
1998.
So, the Commissions decisions concerning
tax rulings are only the most recent
application of rules that have been in place
for a long time.
The good news is that most tax rulings are
used in a legitimate way. We have asked all
our Member States for tax rulings when they
issue tax rulings, and have already looked at
more than a thousand different rulings in the
last three years. Most of them are designed
to give companies clarity about what tax laws
mean, not to help them avoid tax. But where
they give a company illegal tax benefits, EU
state aid rules come into play.
Looking ahead, the ultimate goal is that all
companies, big or small, pay tax where they
generate their profits. EU state aid rules
alone cannot achieve this. We need a change
in corporate philosophies and the right
legislation to address loopholes and ensure
transparency.
Today, base erosion and profit shifting is
estimated to cost up to US$ 240 billion a
year, or up to 10% of the worlds corporate
income tax revenues. Global tax avoidance is
a huge problem and a growing global
concern. We need to close loopholes. A lot
more coordination is needed to tackle these
issues. The EU, the US and their international
partners must work together, because fair
taxation is dependent on international
cooperation. That is the only way we can
avoid mismatches between our national tax
laws.
At last weeks G20 in Hangzhou, China, the
leaders repeated their commitment to join
their efforts for fairer taxation. Its a
commitment that has already produced
important results. The G20 countries
endorsement of OECD recommendations to
limit tax base erosion and profit shifting is a
positive step.
This is also high on the agenda in the EU. The
Commission is pursuing a clear strategy
towards fair taxation and greater
transparency, which has already produced
real change for the better: For example, EU
Member States have last year agreed to
automatically exchange information on tax
rulings and produce country-by-country
reporting of tax-related financial information
of multinationals. But we want to go even
further: in order to shed light on tax rulings
that were previously in the dark, we are
pushing for public country-by-country
reporting that would make this information
also available to the public - citizens as well
as the press.
This is the context for the recent state aid
decisions taken by the European Commission
-and our ongoing work. I hope our
enforcement action will help keep the playing
field level and competition fair. And I hope
that we will all keep up the momentum for
European and world leaders to follow up on
the common objectives to tackle global tax
avoidance and pursue in earnest the
common objective of having companies pay
tax where they make profits. Because fair
taxation enables our societies to give you a
fair chance and create equal opportunities so
no one is left behind.
State aid: Ireland gave illegal tax benefits to
Apple worth up to 13 billion
Brussels, 30 August 2016
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm
Congress Pre Budget Submission

17 Jul 2014
CONGRESS PROPOSES REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS, REDUCED
WATER CHARGES FOR LOWER AND MIDDLE INCOME
FAMILIES AND SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IN SOCIAL AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Net adjustment of 800 million only needed to reach 3%

deficit target.
Five year social housing programme urgently needed.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions has proposed to Government

that it introduce refundable tax credits and reduced water charges
to help people on lower and middle incomes and that it should
invest in a significant social and affordable housing programme.
These proposals were contained in Congresss pre-budget
submission A Budget for Jobs, Homes and Growth which was
launched this morning at Congresss head office in Dublin.
In relation to the overall budgetary arithmetic, David Begg said that

Congress does not accept the wisdom of a 2 billion adjustment in
2015 and also does not agree that the bulk of the adjustment
should continue to fall on cuts to public spending. Mr Begg says that
a better outcome can be achieved in terms of equity, growth and
employment by pursuing the following three-point plan:
_ A net budgetary adjustment of 800 million based on reforms to tax

expenditures, increased employers PRSI on incomes over
100,000, increased excise duties on tobacco, sugar, salt and
saturated fat, a tax on online betting, reform of Capital Acquisitions
Tax as well as the introduction of a Net Wealth Tax;
An increase of 400 million in social spending to be invested in

social housing, improvements in the household benefits package,
mental health services and various community supports;
7 An off-book investment package funded through the Strategic
Investment Fund a substantial proportion of which should be
allocated for social housing.
The Executive Council of Congress is concerned by the emerging

problem of social housing provision noting that its roots lie in an ill-
judged withdrawal from construction by local authorities over the
last 20 years. Congress is calling for a reversal of this policy and an
ambitious programme to provide for all social housing needs over
five years.
David Begg welcomed the announcement of a 300 billion

investment package by the incoming EU President, Jean-Claude
Juncker, involving funding by public-private partnerships, the EU
and the European Investment Bank saying:
There has been a private investment strike in Europe and the

public sector has been unable to fill the gap because of debt. Public
sector capital expenditure has all but disappeared in Ireland;
certainly it is amongst the lowest levels in Europe. We urgently
need to reverse this trend.
David Begg also said that in order for Ireland to meet the 3%
budget deficit target in 2015 a net adjustment of 800 million would
be required in the budget. On this basis, Mr Begg said that there is
no room for tax cuts in 2015 as any such cuts would have to be
funded by a tax increase elsewhere.
While there is no room for an overall cut in taxes in Budget 2015

tax reform in the shape of refundable tax credits would be beneficial
on employment and equity grounds. On the other hand an increase
in the standard rate tax band or a reduction in the marginal income
tax rate would be a highly inefficient way of increasing aggregate
demand, would not benefit the majority of PAYE taxpayers and
would be regressive. Introducing refundable tax credits would cost
the same as increasing the standard rate threshold for income tax
by just 1,000.
Mr Begg outlined Congresss thinking behind this proposal.
The current system of tax credits has a limited impact for many
low-paid workers who do not earn sufficient income to use up their
full tax credits. The introduction of refundable tax credits would
tackle this issue as the unused portion of their tax credits would be
refunded to such workers. A study undertaken for Social Justice
Ireland identified that 130,000 low-paid workers and their families
would benefit from refundable tax credits.
David Begg said that Government must be very cautious in how it
handles the introduction of water charges.
Access to water is a human right. Moving from paying for water

services through general taxation to a system of regressive user
charges risks plunging vulnerable households into water poverty.
The announced system of free allowances is by itself wholly
insufficient to prevent households from falling into water poverty as
well as being an inefficient and expensive policy tool.
If water charges are to be introduced then the already announced

free allowance will have to be supplemented by a system of water
credits or cash transfers for lower and middle income families.
Congress proposes that only those households with a gross income
of at least 80,000 should have a net household water charge in
2015.
David Begg concluded by saying that Congress plan for Budget

2015 would protect the most vulnerable communities and
individuals in Irish society while being supportive of jobs and
growth.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Pat Montague, Montague Communications, 087-2549123
http://www.ictu.ie/press/2014/07/17/congress-pre-budget-
submission/
Constitution and Rules

Workers and Unemployed
Action
Introduction
The constitution and rules of Workers and Unemployed
Action are set out in this document.
Workers and Unemployed Action Group (South Tipperary)
decided to organise on a national basis at its Annual
General Meeting held in September 2012. The
organisation has been registered as a national political
party under the name Workers and Unemployed Action.
It was agreed that this would be the best way of making a
further contribution to the political reorganisation of Irish
working and unemployed people on a principled basis.
Already WUAG is the biggest political labour movement
organisation in South Tipperary having a Dil deputy and
eight local authority seats. It is the biggest single party on
Clonmel Borough Corporation holding five of the twelve
seats. It has strongly out-polled the Labour Party in all
recent general elections and by elections. It emerged from
the local trade union movement over twenty years ago,
initially, as a campaign for jobs and tax equity. Thereafter,
it was found necessary to organise on an open political
basis because the regular participation of the Labour Party
in coalition amounted to a betrayal of workers interests
which made it impossible to maintain a growing political
organisation of workers.
WUAG has always been strongly influenced by the
teachings of James Connolly. It was at the Irish Trade Union
Congress AGM held in Clonmel in 1912, that Larkin and
Connolly proposed the formation of an All-Ireland Labour
Party base on trade unions north and south.
It is now 100 years since that historic event. Nationally,
the state of effective political organisation of Irish workers
in their own interest is now as low as it has ever been.
In response to the current unprecedented attacks on
working people and the loss of even limited national
sovereignty, it was decided that a further step forward
was necessary and urgent at this time. All those,
committed to the principles outlined in the constitution set
out below and are prepared to work for their attainment
who are resident in the 32-counties of Ireland are now
invited to apply for membership.
The constitution and structure set out below does not
purport to be a finished document. WUAG is not just
another left-wing sect. It is a mass organisation of working
people albeit in a single constituency. It does not attempt
to impose a finished political programme or an ideology on
those who wish to join. Those joining will have an
opportunity to change or make additions to its constitution
and structure through motions proposed at the Annual
General Meeting. The document below represents the
minimum with which new members must agree to be
eligible for membership. It reflects current agreed thinking
in WUAG with structures altered to facilitate organisation
on a national basis
It is fair to say that opposition to participation in coalition
governments with conservative parties and refusal to
participate in unnecessary travel and conferences
(junkets) paid from public funds have been the bedrock
of its success to date and these positions will be
maintained into the future. These bedrock positions held
by the organisation are in the context of a wider
commitment to Irish unity, independence and socialism in
the Connolly tradition.
Workers and Unemployed Action
Constitution
Preamble
The politics of Workers and Unemployed Action is rooted
in the heritage of James Connolly, who was martyred for
his participation in the 1916 Rising. We share his
commitment to socialist principles and international
solidarity with workers of all countries and oppressed
peoples everywhere. His determination as a pioneering
trade union organiser and his opposition to early signs of
bureaucratisation of the trade union movement inspire us.
We are committed to the restoration to the Irish trade
union movement of the kind of leadership he gave it. His
successful proposal, with James Larkin, of the founding of
an All-Ireland Party of Labour based on the Trade unions in
1912 was a historic step forward for Irish workers. WUA is
committed to the rebuilding of an all Ireland party of
workers on a principled basis.
We share the view of James Connolly that a united all-
Ireland republic is profoundly in the interest of all Irish
workers.
We are proud of his participation in the 1916 rising and his
input into the 1916 Proclamation of an All-Ireland
democratic republic and his steadfast opposition to the
partition of Ireland before his death. We recognise the
Democratic Programme of the first All-Ireland Dil, which
was influenced by the 1916 proclamation, as a historic
step towards Irish Unity, Independence and Democracy.
The rejection, in practice, by all pro-establishment parties
of key pillars of the Programme is a betrayal of the
objectives of those who signed the 1916 Proclamation.
1. With James Connolly, Workers and Unemployed Action is
committed to achieving Irish Unity, Independence and
Socialism. It is opposed to any intrusion on the
sovereignty of the Irish people.
2. WUA supports and defends Irish military neutrality
3. WUA supports the struggles of workers, unemployed
and oppressed people all over the world.
4. It is dedicated to advancing the political reorganisation
of the working class on an All-Ireland basis in a united all-
Ireland party of workers.
5. It is opposed to coalition or collaboration with
conservative parties in Government or other public
authorities as a matter of principle.
6. Members of WUA will not participate in travel paid from
public funds (junkets) and will oppose provision for this
in local authority estimates and budgets.
7. WUA fights for full employment and the right to work at
trade union rates for all.
8. WUA is opposed to cuts in pay, benefits, pensions, and
entitlements of workers and their dependants in all sectors
and it campaigns for such cuts to be restored.
9. WUA campaigns against cuts in public services, for the
restoration of such cuts and the enhancement of public
services generally
10. WUA fights for Tax Equity and demands the imposition
of steep taxes on the incomes and assets of the super-
rich, including tax exiles, and the alleviation of the tax
burden on those on low and middle incomes. It is opposed
to the imposition of the current household charge, the
proposed domestic dwelling tax( property tax), water
taxes and any other measures which have the effect of
increasing the tax burden on low and middle income
earners.
11. WUA is opposed to the making of repayments of
private debts to large investors or bondholders of their
investments in banks and other private institutions from
public funds and public borrowings.
12. WUA fights for the elimination of poverty and the
redistribution of wealth to those on low and middle
incomes.
13. WUA campaigns for a public health service free at the
point of use with access based solely on medical need.
14. WUA fights for Free Education for all at every level and
a state investment programme to address education
disadvantage at all levels.
15. WUA campaigns for an emergency house building
programme to ensure that all local authority housing
applicants will be housed within 12 months of their
application.
16. WUA campaigns for free high quality child care
provided by the state so that all parents can have the
option to work outside the home and to avail of education
and training.
17. WUA opposes anti-social behaviour and drug abuse
and insists on the provision of community garda on the
beat. WUA also calls for the provision of community and
sporting facilities in all communities/estates and
educational programmes at community level to address
these issues.
18. WUA fights for equality in all areas of life for all
irrespective of gender, marital status, family status, sexual
orientation, religion, age, disability, race, membership of
the travelling community.
19. WUA opposes the privatisation of state companies and
institutions, semi-state companies and banks and insists
that all banks and finance houses be fully nationalised and
integrated into the public service
20. WUA demands an effective public transport system
including an upgraded nationwide rail, bus and road
service in all parts of Ireland, including in rural areas.
Rules
1. WUA is constituted as follows:
Annual General Meeting (AGM) and Special General
Meeting (SGM)
National Management Committee
Branches
Members
2. AGM
The AGM shall be the governing body of the party and
shall meet in the month of October each year. The SGM, in
relation to the issue(s) on which it is convened shall have
the same powers as an AGM.
Motions for the AGM will be submitted one month in
advance of the AGM
Motions which have the effect of changing the constitution
or rules shall require a two thirds majority of those fully
paid up members present and voting at the AGM or SGM
to be carried. All other motions shall require a simple
majority to be carried.
Special General Meetings shall be called by the National
Management Committee or by a written requisition signed
by one third of members who are fully paid up. The SGM
shall be called for a stated purpose.
Motions for the AGM or SGM may be submitted by a
Branch or by two individual members.
Notification of the Annual General meeting together with
the agenda and nominations shall issue to each member
to reach each member not later than 14 days prior to the
date of the meeting.
3. The National Management Committee
The National Management Committee shall meet at least
once a month
The members of the national management committee and
the national officers of the party shall be elected by
proportional representation at the AGM.
To be eligible to stand for election to the above positions a
candidate must have been a paid up member of the party
for at least twelve months.
The officers shall be chairperson, secretary and treasurer.
It shall be open to the AGM to elect up to three additional
officers as it sees fit.
There shall be 20 ordinary members of the National
Management Committee in addition to the national
officers.
Two trustees shall also be elected.
Nomination of a member for election to an officer position
or to the National Management Committee shall be in
writing to the secretary. Any such nomination must be
received not later than three calendar weeks before the
date of the AGM.
The national secretary shall give an annual report to the
AGM on behalf of the National Management Committee.
The national treasurer shall give a report to each AGM on
the detailed financial position of the party.
The national chairperson shall deliver an address to the
AGM
4. Branches
Branches must have a minimum of 5 members. The
formation of a branch must be ratified by the National
Management Committee. General branch meetings will
take place at least once each month.
Branches will implement national policy at local level.
A branch may propose motions to be considered by the
National Management Committee
5. Membership
Individuals will be admitted to membership of WUA by the
national management committee on the basis of
agreement with the constitution and commitment to work
for the stated aims of the party. A candidate for
membership must be nominated by two existing
members. Members of other political parties, political
organisations and political groups shall not be eligible for
membership.
Following a hearing before a meeting of the National
Management Committee on stated charges of unworthy
conduct, a member may be expelled from the party. The
expelled member shall be entitled to personally appeal to
the following AGM which may confirm or overturn the
expulsion.
6. Dues
The current annual membership fee shall be 20 Euro per
year. This fee may be changed by decision of the AGM.
The fee shall be paid to the national treasurer on or before
July 31 each year. Any member failing to make a
contribution as set out above shall be deemed out of
compliance and shall be ineligible to vote or to hold office
within the group for a period of 13 weeks after the arrears
have been paid.
Only members who have paid their annual contribution
and who have completed 13 weeks in membership shall
be eligible to vote.
7. Representatives on Public Bodies
Members sitting on Public Bodies shall vote in line with the
policies and constitution of WUA and shall accept direction
from the National Management Committee in this regard.
All members seeking elective office shall sign a pledge
administered by the National Management Committee
8. Junkets
No member shall accept payment from public funds for
journeys outside their area of residence.
Public representatives of WUA shall vote against the
funding of such trips.
9. Candidates for Elective Office
Candidates for elective office will be selected by
proportional representation by the members in the
constituency or county council area concerned and must
be ratified by the National Management Committee. The
National Management Committee may nominate a
candidate or candidates for any elective office.
Only party members shall be eligible for nomination to
contest election to public office.
Each member nominated to contest an election to public
office or selected by the party to assume a public office
shall sign a pledge to abide by the policies of the party
and to obey the directions of the National Management
Committee
A public representative of the party who breaches the
pledge shall forthwith exclude herself/himself from
membership of the party.
Each member elected to public office shall make a
financial contribution (in addition to membership fee) to
the party as recommended by the national management
committee and decided by an AGM or SGM from time to
time.
10. Commencement
The first National AGM will be held within 6 months of the
official launch of this constitution and rules.
Until the first AGM is held the current Management
Committee of WUAG (South Tipperary) will act as the
leadership of the new party.
Text of Pledge by Candidates for Election or

nomination to Public Office
In accepting the nomination of WUA to contest this
election, I pledge that if elected I will promote the aims
and objectives of the WUA and agree to be bound by the
constitution, rules and policies of the WUA.
I understand the policy of the WUA in relation to service
charges and home or property tax and agree to oppose
and vote against any local authority Budget/Estimate or
parliamentary motion or legislative measure that includes
the imposition or implementation of these measures.
I understand the WUA position in relation to junkets and
I undertake, if elected, not to support or participate in
these.
I further pledge to make such a financial contribution to
WUA as determined from time to time by WUA for the
purpose of meeting the expenses of the party in
promoting its aims and objectives
https://wuag.wordpress.com/about/constitution-and-rules/
People Power Will Abolish

Water Charges!
February 28, 2017
I was present at the founding meeting of the Right2Water
campaign in 2014 in Leinster House and I was present again today
in Leinster House at the Oireachtas Water Committee meeting
when it became clear that a majority of members are now in favour
of abolishing these water charges and are also opposed to any
charge for so called excessive use of water.
Hundreds of thousands of ordinary Irish people took to the streets
to defeat this unfair double taxation.
While its early days yet, your opposition to these charges, your
protest, your opposition to meter installation, your non-payment
campaign has put us on the verge of an historic victory.
But beware, theres many a slip between the cup and the lip and
we must remain vigilant.
The people won on the water charges feckin ages ago!!
Once that defiant moment of clarity came and we stood
en masse and said f**k right off - that was the moment we
won...
The suits in Leinster House are chatting about this and
that and they can keep on talking... Cause who really
gives a f*ck - we made our stand - thousands upon
thousands upon thousands stood their ground - and that is
when we won.. We were defiant and didn't back down - as
a country we made a resolute choice...
The media didn't work against us - we rose above it...
Many government ministers threatened us through the
years and failed and are now gone..
They hired Irish water advisers to threaten us and they
failed too - many of them are gone too..
Their fear mongering didn't work, and by jaysus they
bullied!!
Let them pander out the incidentals and no doubt they will
throw out some last dying breaths - but be proud, very,
very proud - that each and every one of you beat them a
long time ago when you said "no more"..
And if they try to throw another slippery move at us
regarding water charges - that is gonna be them sealing
their own faith...
Now that you realise your strength - keep going!
Potential impacts of CETA on

water and water services
Dear MEP,
We, the undersigned organizations, would like to call on
you to vote against the ratification of the Comprehensive
Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU
and Canada, which endangers freshwater resources and
water services at both sides of the Atlantic.
After thorough analysis of the CETA text and the Joint
Interpretative Instrument, we have found several
provisions within the CETA which pose serious threats to
watersheds and public water and sanitation services in
Canada and the EU:
-- Water is included in CETA despite all the promises
that it would be out of negotiations and despite the
opinion of the European Parliament in its resolution of
8 September 2015 on the follow-up to the European
Citizens Initiative Right2Water (2014/2239(INI), no. 22),
where the Parliament calls on the Commission to
permanently exclude water and sanitation and
wastewater disposal from internal market rules and
from any trade agreement[1].
Provisions of CETA Article 1.9 could lead to further
water commodification and facilitate corporate
water grabbing. The article says: If a party permits the
commercial use of a specific water source, it shall do so in
a manner consistent with this agreement, without
defining commercial use or water source. In case of
"commercial use" water rights are subjected to CETA trade
and investment rules. Especially the extra investment
protection standards ("Fair and equitable treatment" and
Indirect Expropriation") for foreign investors could have a
strong influence on the way water rights are granted by
authorities and in fact limit their possibilities to deny or
restrict water rights once they have been granted to
foreign investors. There have already been
investment disputes involving water rights under
similar agreements (NAFTA[2], Energy Charter[3]) that
resulted in settlements in favour of the investor.
-- Reservations taken for Collection, purification and
distribution of water services on Market Access and
National Treatment are not enough to guarantee a full
protection. Most Favoured Nation and Performance
Requirements reservations would have been needed. And
even though drinking water services are included in Annex
II, investment protection would still apply to them [4].
-- Only Germany can apply a Market Access
reservation on sanitation (sewage, refuse disposal and
sanitation services). The introduction of those services
under the CETA framework for the rest of the EU member
states contradicts article 12 of the EU Concessions
Directive, which lays down that the Directive shall not
apply to concessions awarded to the disposal or treatment
of sewage[5].
-- The horizontal limitation clause applied by the
European Union to protect public utilities is not enough
to protect public services. On one hand, it doesnt
include reservations for investment protection or National
Treatment. On the other hand, the terminology is
ambiguous, as the term public utilities has no specific
meaning in international law, and no equivalent term in EU
law. This horizontal exemption has never been tested in a
negative list agreement or in an agreement with a country
that is a significant commercial supplier of public services
with a market interest in the EU[6].
-- Regulatory cooperation and investment protection
would lock in privatisation of water services and
hamper the ability of governments to reclaim public water
services back under public management, which is a
growing trend in Europe.
-- CETA might limit the operational capacity of
public water companies, as water rights are treated as
investments and the reservations do not cover all current
and future activities public operators need to fulfil
according to national legislation[7].
-- CETA lacks a precautionary principle approach,
which is an inherent component of EU law. In addition,
Regulatory cooperation in CETA would potentially restrict
the policy space of EU member states. This could have
major impacts on health, environment and water resource
protection.
-- CETA ignores the unitary nature of the water
cycle, water limits in the planet, and the multifunctional
nature of water in ecosystems[8].
The Joint Interpretative Instrument fails to address
the shortcomings of the agreement and paints an
unreasonably optimistic picture about CETA. There is
no legally safe new commitment or clarification in the
text. We will only know the real potential of CETA
provisions when decisions from public authorities or public
water companies are clarified at a later stage. We cannot
take that risk.
The European Union must consider water as a
commons, and access to water and sanitation as a
Human Right. We call on you to defend interests of the
people of Europe and their environment from the threats
posed by CETA by voting against the ratification of
the agreement in the Plenary vote.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?
uri=CELEX:32014L0023&from=EN
Yours sincerely,
Blue Planet Project
Council of Canadians
European Water Movement
Food & Water Europe
Wasser in Brgerhand (Water in Citizens Hands, Germany)
[1] Resolution of the European parliament, 2014/2239
(INI), no 22
[2] AbitibiBowater vs. Canada, amount paid CAD $130
Comments on Article 1.9 of CETA by prof. Gus Van Harten
[3] Vattenfall vs. Germany, amount claimed 1.4
billion, p. 23
[4] Krajewski, Markus (2016). Model Clauses for the
Exclusion of Public Services from Trade and Investment
Agreements.
[5] Directive 2014/23/UE of the European parliament and
of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of
concession contracts
[6] Krajewsky, Markus (2016). Op. Cit.
[7] Allianz der ffentlichen Wasserwirtschaft e.V., 2016.
Wasserwirtschaft im Sog des Freihandels-CETA.
Prof. Laskowski, 2016. Rechtliches Gutachten zu mglichen
Versten gegen Investitionsschutzregelungen des
Freihandelsabkommens CETA durch Manahmen der
kommunalen Wasserwirtschaft, ISDS,
Schiedsgerichtsverfahren und Haftungsfragen.
Stadtwerke Karlsruhe, 2016. How water supply in
Germany would be affected by the EU free trade and
investment agreements CETA, TTIP, TiSA.
[8] Comments on Article 1.9 of CETA by prof. Francesc La
Roca
http://europeanwater.org/european-water-
resources/reports-publications/704-
potential-impacts-of-ceta-on-water-and-
water-services
Comments on Article 1.9 of

CETA
Gus Van Harten
Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School
The last clause of article 1.9 in the CETA is very clear that
the Agreement applies to water where put into commercial
use. In turn, the investment chapter and ISDS (investor-
state dispute settlement, renamed ICS in the final version
of CETA) would apply to such situations.
In this framework, one can speculate reasonably about
areas of regulation involving water that would by
implication subject to the public financial risks and
regulatory chill pressures created by the availability of
ISDS to foreign owners of water-related assets.
However, it would also be possible to identify existing ISDS
cases that related to water such as (a) the regulation,
ownership, or operation of public water supplies,
especially in circumstances of privatized ownership or
operation, and (b) the regulation of water subject to a
commercial agreement with a foreign investor. I can think
of various cases involving (a) and one involving (b).
There are also many ISDS cases involving resource
conflicts that affect water, such as where mining activities
are restricted due to potential contamination of water.
These are known ISDS cases. Of course we can reasonably
estimate that there are many more unknown cases in
which the threat of ISDS behind the scenes affects
decision-making or leads to settlements with the state.
Indeed I am aware of one case in Ontario, based on
interviews with current or former government officials, in
which proposals for water charges for takings of
groundwater (mainly by large bottling companies) was
subject to time-consuming internal government analysis of
ISDS risks under NAFTA; the proposals went ahead in part
because the charges were so miniscule as to make the
ISDS risks very low. Yet a more serious charge on water
takings may therefore have been deterred because of
ISDS.
A brief way of stating the overall situation is that article
1.9 makes very clear that water that is sufficiently
connected to commercial activities, in the view of ISDS
tribunals which have tended to favour the perspective of
claimant investors when interpreting ambiguity in the
treaty language can be considered an "asset" or
"investment" triggering the suite of foreign investor rights
and protections from regulatory activity that are available
through ISDS.
MODEL CLAUSES FOR THE EXCLUSION
OF PUBLIC SERVICES FROM TRADE AND
INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS
Study commissioned by the Chamber of Labour

Vienna and the European Federation of Public
Service Unions
February 2016
http://www.epsu.org/sites/default/files/article/files/Study%20M
%20Krajewski_Model%20clauses%20for%20the%20exclusion%20of
%20public%20services_2016.pdf
European Parliament resolution of 8 September 2015 on the follow-up
to the European Citizens Initiative Right2Water
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?
pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P8-TA-2015-
0294+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN
FRANCE, ITALY DEFY FISCAL
TREATY. IRELAND?
October 5, 2014
Ordered to obey strict austerity measures like everyone else,
Francenonetheless said non. Italy has followed suitPerhaps
we should be more continental
It is, of course, a lot easier to defy the EUs budget rules when you
have a fleet of nuclear
submarines at your disposal. Still, France has gone ahead and given
the two fingers to
Brussels, prompting some to talk of a declaration of independence,
and others (more
prosaically) to recall 2003 and the wrecking of the original stability
and growth pact.
Like ourselves, France is supposed to get its deficit down below 3
per cent next year. But
in his draft budget on Wednesday, the French finance minister
Michel Sapin said he is
not going to. France will run a 4.3 per cent deficit next year a
whole 0.1 per cent better
than this year because, it says, austerity is not right for France.
2017 is the new date for a sub-3 per cent deficit in France, though
the French version of
the fiscal advisory council has its doubts about the growth needed
for this.
The Italians, who lack nuclear weapons, have nevertheless said
much the same thing in
their budget draft: stuff this austerity thing, we need some cash
ostensibly for growth-
promoting reforms but cash, anyway.
That two of the big three states of the eurozone have decided to
defy the rules should
make for an interesting Ecofin council in November, when ministers
get together to
review each others draft budgets. It has already poisoned the
political atmosphere in the
European Parliament, where Pierre Moscovici faced a torrid hearing
in his bid to
become economics commissioner. Having failed to meet the
deficit rules as finance
minister in France, Moscovici is now supposed to be the budget
enforcer for
everyone else.
Does all of this herald an almighty Euro-row in the weeks before
Christmas, potentially
destabilising not just for the stability pact, but the currency and the
bond market? More
importantly, whats in it for us?
Michael Noonan and Brendan Howlin went in opposite directions
when I asked them
about the French budget.
Noonan said the rules were the rules, they applied equally to big
and small, and they
had to be adhered to for the good of all. Howlin, meanwhile,, who
met Sapin and his
budget minister in Paris three weeks ago, was less certain given
the choice between a
rules-compliant (and therefore contractionary) France or an
expanding France, he sees
growth there as being good for Ireland
Remember this from May 2016??

""His tenure as Environment Minister ends this week - but
a 1.7m-a-year water quango could be Alan Kelly's
"parting gift" to Tipperary voter"
Coveney says he will not

legislate for water charges
abolition as it would be illegal
The Housing Minister was talking tough tonight, but said Fine Gael were
not in breach of confidence and supply agreement.
February 28, 17
HOUSING MINISTER SIMON Coveney has said he will not
legislate for the water committees agreement if it doesnt
include a charge for excessive usage.
The majority of those on the Oireachtas joint committee on
the future funding of water services have indicated that they
are in favour of abolishing domestic charges and are
opposed to charging for the excessive use of water.
The committee met today to discuss a final draft report, with
Fianna Fil, Sinn Fin and the Anti-Austerity Alliance-
People Before Profit (AAA-PBP) agreeing there should be no
charges even for excessive water use.
I will not introduce legislation that potentially exposes the
country to very severe penalties and fines from the
European Commission I wont do that, Coveney told
reporters tonight.
EU law
Last year, the European Commission said Ireland will be in
breach of European law should it remove the charges
completely.
We have clear advice from Attorney Generals Office, I have
legal advice from my own department and the expert
commissions advice that was very clear and we have a
European Commission that has shown flexibility and
willingness to work with Ireland, but are also clear that there
has to be some consequences for households wasting large
amounts of water, he said.
Follow
TheJournal Politics

Coveney says he will not introduce water charges

legislation that will incur penalties from the EU
9:00 PM - 28 Feb 2017
U 3 3 Retweets1 1 like
Source: TheJournal Politics/Twitter
Coveney said Fine Gael are willing to compromise, but
added that other parties have to be prepared to do the same.
We have compromised on the Fine Gael view very
significantly, and were asking other parties seeking a
working solution to do the same.
If that compromise involves exposing the State to legal
action, I dont think as an office holder I can facilitate that,
said the minister.
Fianna Fils position
He said Fianna Fil had hardened its position on the issue,
and accused the party of altering their stance on charges in
recent days.
What Fianna Fil seem to be saying today is that it is okay
by them for the general taxpayer to waste water that
wasnt the Fianna Fil position until a few days ago.
Coveney insisted tonight that the work of the committee

isnt finished, adding that he still wants consensus.
When asked what the outcome would be if the committees
final recommendation was for the total abolition of all water
charges, he said:
I would be very surprised if Fianna Fil asked a government
minister to introduce something that was against the AGs
[Attorney General's] advice.
We cannot ignore independent legal advice it is hugely
irresponsible to ask us to do that.
Follow
TheJournal Politics

Coveney is digging in tonight - he won't legislate water

committee agreement if it doesn't include excessive water
charge use
9:04 PM - 28 Feb 2017
5 5 Retweets3 3 likes
Source: TheJournal Politics/Twitter
Breaching confidence and supply agreement

Coveney said Fine Gael were not breaching the confidence
and supply agreement (the deal between Fianna Fil and
Fine Gael which essentially keeps the government in power).
The agreement was never intended to instruct a minister to
act contrary to the advice of the Attorney General, he said.
We will continue to abide by it and I hope Fianna Fil will
too.
The agreement states that the government will facilitate the
passage of legislation for the implementation of the
recommendations in relation to domestic water charging
(whether it be abolition, a reformed charging regime or
other options).
This line was put to the minister this evening and he was
asked what would happen if the Oireachtas approved and
voted in favour for the abolition of the water charges regime.
Facilitating is not the same as introducing, he clarified.
What I am saying is I cannot introduce legislation that I
regard as effectively illegal.
Bullying the committee
Sinn Fin spokesperson on water Eoin Broin has accused
the minister of trying to bully the Oireachtas Water
Committee.
Tonights intervention by Minister Coveney prior to the
Committee concluding our business is wholly inappropriate.
He is trying to bully the Committee with exaggerated claims
on the supposed illegality of complete abolition of water
charges.
While a final decision is expected tomorrow or next week it
is clear that the Government is losing the argument.
The minister should stop interfering in the work of the
Committee. He should adhere to the process he set up and
respect the outcome of the Committee.
He said the minister will have plenty of time to respond to
the committees final report when it is debated by the Dil
and Seanad later this month.
OBroin said Coveneys attempts to influence the outcome of
the committees deliberations is wrong and smacks of
desperation.
The group of 20 TDs is expected to finalise its report
tomorrow ahead of a Dil vote due to take place by the end
of March.
http://www.thejournal.ie/simon-coveney-water-charges-
3264314-Feb2017/#comment-5931067
How do ya feel about the VRT being illegal Simon?
He is an absolute B word.
FG thugs, They set up a commission and now wont honour its findings,
what a shower of B words.
This really is a new low for our Leinster house executives it really is.
Illegal by who, the EU ! so heres my problem Slovenia another EU
country have attached their water to their constitution free of charge.
The EU have not instituted proceedings and will not. Coveney seems to
have a commercial interest in a privitised Irish Water. As for achieving
the leadership of FG he will be lucky to be elected next time.
John Perkins, Former Advisor IMF.
My job was to identify countries with resources that corporations
covert, like oil and then arrange a huge loan to that country from the
World Bank or from one of its sister organisations. The money however
would not go to the country, it would go to our own corporations who
would make huge profits, but the majority of the people would suffer
terrible as a result, because money would be diverted from Education,
Healthcare and other Social Services to pay interest on the debt.
What happened when the IMF moved in and the debt couldnt be
repaid?
We go back into that country and say, since you cant pay your debt,
sell your resource oil or whatever real cheap to our corporations without
any environmental restrictions or, or social regulations. Privatise, sell
your electric utilities, your water, sewage systems, your schools, your
jails, all your public sector businesses to our corporations, and in the
few cases where we failed economic hitman, the jackals went in and still
do and aah, they either assassinate the leaders of the country or
overthrow them in coups.
And who invited the IMF into Ireland?? FFFGLAB PARTY
Isnt it just amazing that the government can hide behind European
rules when its sees fit, but the Irish banks are allowed to charge variable
rates of 4.5% when the European rate is less than 2% across the board.
Hypocrisy at its best!
Hes completely undermined the credibility of the Expert water

commission with this statement.
If thats Fine Gaels position then why did they allow the commission to
go ahead with the report?
This commission was set up by Simon Coveney who remarked at the
time:
I have chosen people who I consider to have the necessary professional
expertise in environmental matters, law, economics, the customer
perspective, the water sector and the regulatory system, and I have
included a mix of both national and international experts,
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
We should have an Irish Water debt clock. It must be running to around
10 billion euro by now? A criminal waste of taxpayers money and
resources. Make it a sackable offence for gross incompetence and
corruption and many of our problems would disappear overnight. If I
was a CEO of a large company and I had no punishment for fraud or
corruption I would expect the loophole to be exploited by staff and to be
out of business within the year. For some reason we allow it in OUR
government and when we see the problems it causes we still do nothing,
over and over again. Can we the people hire our own legal team and
bring a case against our government for not creating legislation that
prevents repeated damage to our citizens and our society? Just a
thought.
Its just the little guy they will want to target, the ones doing the
environment a favour by planting pollen and nectar rich flowers to
attract bees, butterflies and other pollinators into the garden and who
use a hose the rare occasion that we get a bit of warm weather. If there is
money to be made or a way to squeeze more out of you, theyll do it.
COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION Commercial distributors of

software generally. NO WARRANTY EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY
SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, THE PROGRAM OR ANY
DERIVATIVE THEREOF, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE USE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
This Motosoto Open Source license, or under a variety of

different licenses that are reasonably necessary to
implement that API, Contributor must include such Notice
in a lawsuit) alleging that the language of a Modified
Version available to such recipients. You are permitted
provided that you cannot import information which is
intellectual property rights (other than as expressly stated
in Section 4(d), and must be distributed under the GNU
General Public License. Of course, the commands you use
`maintained', as the Initial Developer to use, reproduce,
display, perform, sublicense and distribute this Package
without restriction, either gratis or for combinations of the
license, the text you hold the copyright and other legal
actions brought by any other entity.
Each Contributor represents that to its structure, then You

must: (a) rename Your license so that the requirements of
this Agreement. REQUIREMENTS A Contributor may
choose to distribute the Program originate from and are
distributed on an unmodified basis or as part of the
Program in a lawsuit), then any patent Licensable by Initial
Developer in the case of the Standard Version. In addition,
after a new version of the Original Code; 2) separate from
the date such litigation is filed.
All Recipient's rights under this License released under CC-
BY-SA and either a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to
an updated version of the Licensed Product doesn't work
properly or causes you any injury or damages. If you
import may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant
contributions.) This applies to code to which You create or
to which you may distribute your own license, but
changing it is Your responsibility to acquire that license
itself honors the conditions listed in Clause 6 above,
concerning changes from status `maintained' to
`unmaintained' if there is a sample; alter the names:
Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in
and to charge a reasonable copying fee for this Package or
making it accessible to anyone to deny you these rights or
contest your rights to the copy that the instructions are
invalid, then you must indicate in a trademark sense to
endorse or promote products or services of Licensee, or
any and all rights granted hereunder will terminate
automatically if You fail to comply with Section 4 with
respect to some or all of the Source form. Permission for
Use and Modification Without Distribution It is not
intended for use in source or binary form and its
associated documentation, interface definition files, plus
the scripts used to control compilation and installation of
the Licensed Product under this License Agreement,
Licensee may substitute the following disclaimer in the
Source form of the Contribution causes such combination
to be unenforceable, such provision shall be governed by
California law provisions (except to note that your license
so that the recipients all the rights set forth in this section
to induce you to have, we need to make Modifications to
the terms of the work was authored and/or last
substantially modified. Include also a statement that the
requirements of this Agreement will not have to forbid you
to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made, and/or
otherwise dispose of the Contribution of that work without
being authorised to do the following: rename any non-
standard features, executables, or modules, and provided
that you can change NetHack or any other entity based on
the date such litigation is filed.
All Recipient's rights granted hereunder will terminate: (a)

automatically without notice from Respondent (the "Notice
Period") unless within that District with respect to some or
all of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of the Source
Code of the Licensed Product, including the original
version of the Work. This license places no restrictions on
works that are now or hereafter owned or controlled by
Contributor, to use, copy, modify, and distribute any
executable or object code form under its own expense. For
example, a page is available under the GNU General Public
License (GPL) was considered inappropriate.
Even if your work is unrelated to LaTeX, the discussion in

`modguide.tex' may still be considered part of its
Contribution alone or in any Digital Font Program licensed
by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of this
Package in a commercial product offering. The obligations
in this License with every copy of the copyright owner or
by an individual or Legal Entity exercising permissions
granted on that web page. By copying, installing or
otherwise use Python 1.6b1 available to the intellectual
property of any other intellectual property claims, each
Contributor hereby grants Licensee a non-exclusive,
royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable license, under Your
Applicable Patent Rights and copyrights covering the
Original Code, prior Modifications used by a version of the
software itself, if and wherever such third-party
acknowledgments normally appear. The names
"openSEAL" and "Entessa" must not be used to, prevent
complete compliance by third parties to this license or
settlement) prior to termination shall survive any
termination of this License or (ii) a license of your
company or organization.
Fee" means any form under this License Agreement does

not infringe the patent or trademark) Licensable by
Contributor, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made,
use, practice, sell, and offer for sale, have made, use, offer
to sell, import and otherwise transfer the Work, you may,
without restriction, modify the terms set forth in this
Agreement. Except as expressly stated in writing, the
Copyright Holder. Holder" means the original copyright
notices in the aggregation. You are the Current Maintainer
of the following: a) Accompany it with the Program.
Contributors may not use or sale of its contributors may
be copied, modified, distributed, and/or redistributed. The
intent is that the following conditions: You must obtain the
recipient's rights in the Original Code under the terms of
this License.
If You institute patent litigation against a Contributor to

enforce any provision of this License a non-exclusive,
worldwide, royalty-free copyright license set forth in this
Agreement. Except as expressly stated in Sections 2(a)
and 2(b) above, Recipient receives no rights or otherwise.
All rights reserved. Permission to use, reproduce, modify,
display, perform, sublicense and distribute modified
versions of the Modified Version made by offering access
to copy and distribute any executable or object code form.
Subject to the authors of the Work.
If you develop a new version of the Package, do not, by

themselves, cause the modified work as "Original Code"
means (a) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the
direction or management of such Contributor, and the
remainder of the modifications made to create or to use
the license or settlement) prior to termination shall not
affect the validity or enforceability of the General Public
License from time to time. Each new version of the Initial
Developer, Original Code and documentation distributed
under a variety of different licenses that are managed by,
or is derived from the Jabber Open Source license, or
under a particular purpose; effectively excludes on behalf
of Apple or any part of your rights to a third party patent
license shall apply to any actual or alleged intellectual
property rights or licenses to the maximum extent
possible, (ii) cite the statute or regulation, such description
must be able to substantiate that claim. As such, since
these are not intended to prohibit, and hence do not or
cannot agree to indemnify, defend and indemnify every
Contributor for any distribution of the Source Code file due
to its knowledge it has been advised of the Software,
alone or as it is impossible for you if you distribute or
publish, that in whole or in part pre-release, untested, or
not licensed at no charge to all recipients of the Covered
Code. Your Grants. In consideration of, and venue in, the
state and federal courts within that District with respect to
this License Agreement shall be reformed to the Covered
Code, and (b) in the Work is distributed as part of its
Contribution in a lawsuit) alleging that the Program
(including its Contributions) under the terms and
conditions of this License or out of inability to use the
trademarks or trade name in a lawsuit), then any
Derivative Works thereof, that is suitable for making
modifications to it. For example, if a Contributor which are
necessarily infringed by the Initial Developer to use,
reproduce and/or distribute the Executable version or as
part of a whole at no charge to all recipients of the
Agreement Steward reserves the right to use it under the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
License.
For compatibility reasons, you are welcome to redistribute

it under the GNU Library General Public License as
published by the copyright owner or entity identified as
the Agreement is invalid or unenforceable under
applicable law, if any, to grant the copyright or copyrights
for the Executable version under a variety of different
licenses that support the general public to re-distribute
and re-use their contributions freely, as long as the use or
not licensed at all. Termination. 12.1 Termination. This
License provides that: 1.
You may choose to offer, and charge a fee for, acceptance

of support, warranty, indemnity, or other work that is
exclusively available under this License Agreement,
BeOpen hereby grants Recipient a non-exclusive,
worldwide, royalty-free patent license is required to grant
broad permissions to the notice in Exhibit A. Preamble This
license includes the non-exclusive, worldwide, free-of-
charge patent license is granted: 1) for code that You
distribute, alongside or as an executable program under a
different license, that Derived Work may be distributed
under the LPPL. The document `modguide.tex' in the
Licensed Program.
THIS LICENSED PROGRAM IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS"

basis. PSF MAKES NO AND DISCLAIMS ANY
REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, BUT NOT
LIMITATION, BEOPEN MAKES NO AND DISCLAIMS ANY
REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE LICENSOR "AS IS" AND ANY

EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
OR SERVICE; DAMAGES ARISING IN ANY RESPECT, YOU
(NOT THE INITIAL DEVELOPER OR ANY DERIVED PROGRAM,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITATION, CNRI MAKES NO
REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, BUT NOT LIMITATION, PSF
MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTED GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY
OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,
OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE PROGRAM OR ANY
DERIVATIVE THEREOF, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE PROGRAM
OR THE USE OF THIS AGREEMENT. This LICENSE
AGREEMENT is between BeOpen.com ("BeOpen"), having
an office at 160 Saratoga Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95051,
and the derived file pig.sty. Given such a notice.
These people do unfortunately exist. I currently live in Amsterdam, and

some time ago a member of parliament (who happened to be in the
Geert Wilders Freedom Party) was interviewed on national TV,
admitting to running his tap all day to moisturize his allegedly dry
house. This caused quite a shock in the country.
Simon Bilderburg Coveney will not and cannot countenance no
water charges. He's a fully signed up member of the Corporate
Privitisation agenda & his big business bosses won't allow him back
down. It's a core policy of his & Fine Gael. R2W has a bit of work to
do yet
And i am predicting that staff back from the tesco strike..will
become victims of bullying by management if it is not checked
straight away....and i base this on talking to the same people to-day.
Excessive water usage
charge' among key
proposals in water
committee draft
document
Niall O'Connor
February 28 2017
1
padraig o ceidigh
The Water Charges debate has created a
political storm.
Here are the key proposals contained in a draft document
prepared by water committee chairman Pdraig Ceidigh,
which have been seen by Independent.ie.
The key proposal about excessive water usage is the

subject of a row between Fine Gael and Fianna Fil.
An excessive water usage charge under the polluter pays
principle to comply with EU law
Refunds for households which have paid their bills
Domestic meters already installed to be retained and
requirement for all new builds to have meters installed
Tax/welfare benefit for those who voluntarily take up a
domestic meter
Waivers for users with high consumption who have
certified medical conditions
Tax relief for the installation of systems that reduce water
consumption
Consideration for those on group water schemes
All new buildings must incorporate water conservation
fittings
Referendum to keep Irish Water in public ownership
Establishment of a Drinking Water Inspectorate, similar to
the UK
Make the Public Water forum an advisor to the
Commission for Energy Regulation (CER)
Water charges are going
nowhere, says European
Commission
It has said that Ireland changed its established practice under a Fianna
Fil-led government in 2010.
Jun 27th 2016
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC) has said that Ireland

is no longer exempt from water charges.
In a statement today, the commission confirmed a view that
it outlined to TheJounal.ie earlier this month.
What this boils down to is whether or not water charges is
the established practice in Ireland, or if paying through
general taxation is.
With the EC viewing water charges as the norm, Ireland will
now be in breach of European law should it remove the
charges.
In a response to a parliamentary question asked by Irish
independent MEP Marian Harkin, European Commissioner
for the Environment, Karmenu Vella points to the
implementation of the river basin management plan in 2010
under a Fianna Fil-led government as the moment
established practice passed the point of no return.
This river basin management plan did not have water
charges as its sole objective but rather focused on hitting
the environmental objectives of the EUs Water Framework
Directive.
Back before then, Ireland would have been in a better
position to wriggle through the established practice
loophole in getting out of implementing the charges.
In his response, Commissioner Vella said that the Directive:
Does not provide for a situation whereby it can revert to
any previous practice.
Already parties on the opposition benches disagree with the
ECs assessment with Sinn Fin and Fianna Fil
contending Irelands established practice is for water to be
paid for through general taxation.
Ireland could still potentially challenge the European
Commissions stance at the European Court of Justice.
The governments current position is to suspend water
charges for nine months and establish a commission to
explore alternatives.
http://www.thejournal.ie/water-charges-nowhere-commission-
2849331-Jun2016/
Most households will not have to pay for all normal

domestic and personal water, an expert report said
on Tuesday.
The commission recommended the State should pay
for normal household use through general taxation
while a charge for excessive amounts must be made
by the householder.
The 63-page report added a change to existing taxes or
a dedicated levy could provide the money required to
fund the resource.
It was not entirely clear last night how normal or
excessive usage would be calculated.
But the report advised the Energy Regulator and public
water forum should decide on normal use while the
regulator must rule on excessive.
The proposals include a provision for people with
medical or other special needs while the document
suggested a waiver system should be applied in
exceptional cases
Irish Water workers
Most homes would not pay for water charges under draft
new proposals
It also recommended there should be equity for people on
group schemes or with private wells.
Two out of every three households have paid charges
since they were introduced in 2015 and the report advised
they should be treated no less favourably than those who
did not.
Minister for Housing, Planning, Community & Local
Government Simon Coveney TD
He said: I think most reasonable people, I hope
anyway, will see this as an opportunity to put this issue
to bed.
There is an acceptance in this report that for normal
usage of water the taxpayer should pay for that.
Fianna Fails Michael McGrath added: It marks a
departure from Government policy and would appear
to accept the principle, which we have put out there for
quite some time, that the provision of domestic water
would be based on general taxation.
A range of domestic water charges for homeowners
coming into effect in a little over eight weeks time will be
announced tomorrow by the energy regulator.
However, the proposed free water allowance for children
of 38,000 litres per child may be revised downwards after
suggestions from Irish Water.
The average cost per household, estimated costs for non-

metered homes and waivers for people with medical
conditions, will be among the plans announced tomorrow.
The plans will also address whether certain households will

have to pay charges if the water coming into their
properties is not fit for consumption.
Irish Waters proposals on charges have been considered

by the commission on energy regulation for a number of
weeks. The regulators draft charges are now being
released for public consultation.
Department of Environment sources say a substantial

document on the proposed charges, heavy on detail, will
be released.
The average charge per household, as already signalled

by the Government, is expected to be 240.
A free allowance will also be granted to homes, which is

expected to be 30,000 litres per property.
However, a previously suggested free allowance of 38,000
litres per child is expected to be revised downwards. This
emerged during an Oireachtas Environment Committee
meeting with the regulator last month, where officials said
that Irish Water had suggested so after the company
received provisional usage data from homes with recently
installed metres.
Paul McGowan, CER Commissioner, said that Irish Water

did not feel the allowance accurately represents the
usage of a child.
The Government have already said there will be no flat

charge for households.
But the regulator is also expected to announce whether or

not there will be a fixed charge for those with more than
one property.
Charges for non-metered households will also be proposed

by the regulator.
Despite the fact that nearly 30,000 a meters a month are

being installed, it is estimated that only a quarter to one
third of houses in the country will actually have a meter in
place when charging begins in October.
Irish Water will issue letters to households in September in

order to identify what free entitlements occupants can
claim.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/irish-water-
crisis/excessive-water-usage-charge-among-key-proposals-in-water-
committee-draft-document-35491307.html
They can't build a Children's Hospital. They can't house
the homeless. They can't provide hospital beds. One in six
people in Ireland are on hospital waiting lists. And this
gobshite Alan Farrell of Fine Gael wants to build a cricket
stadium. What planet are these people on?
Varadkar among
objectors to plans for 41
new apartments
Gordon Deegan
February 24 2017
He joined forces with local Fine Gael councillor Eithne

Loftus to lodge a joint appeal with An Bord Pleanla
against Fingal County Council's decision to give the green
light to Absainte Ltd for the 41-apartment development.
Last month, the council gave the go-ahead to demolish
Brady's pub at the Old Navan Road, Castleknock, to
construct four four-storey apartment blocks on lands
zoned for residential development.
Leo Varadkar. Photo: Tom Burke
Leo Varadkar is one of a number of
objectors against a new 10m apartment
block plan in an area of Dublin he admits is
being hit by the housing shortage.
He joined forces with local Fine Gael councillor Eithne
Loftus to lodge a joint appeal with An Bord Pleanla
against Fingal County Council's decision to give the green
light to Absainte Ltd for the 41-apartment development.
Last month, the council gave the go-ahead to demolish
Brady's pub at the Old Navan Road, Castleknock, to
construct four four-storey apartment blocks on lands
zoned for residential development.
The council granted permission in spite of 90 objections,
including from former Labour leader and Tnaiste Joan
Burton and Fianna Fil TD Jack Chambers.
Mr Varadkar said he was certain that the plan "will impact
on the residential amenity and property values of
neighbouring homes". He argued that "the application
must be rejected in favour of a more appropriate
residential or mixed-use development for this site".
A decision is due to be made by An Bord Pleanla in June.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/varadkar-among-objectors-to-
plans-for-41-new-apartments-35478127.html
Politicians are Not to be trusted...

They are Running scared with an Election in the air
The Minister for Communications, Climate Action, and
Environment has given notice of his intention to grant
prospecting licences here for Base Metals, Barytes, Gold
and Silver to a Wexford-based mining company.
They'll be exploring in townslands across the city and
county, in the baronies 0f Callan, Crannagh, Kells,
Knocktopher, and Shillelogher.
Group Eleven Mining and Exploration Ltd, Cratloe,
Ballyprecas, Bunclody, Wexford will have the opportunity
to explore for resources in hundreds of townlands in both
Tipperary and Kilkenny. The license, if granted, will entitle
Group Eleven Mining and Exploration Ltd to explore for
mineral deposits. It does not authorise the mining of any
minerals.
People living in dozens of townslands around Kilkenny could be

sitting on precious minerals, including gold and silver and the
keen prospectors are on their way.
The Minister for Communications, Climate Action, and
Environment has given notice of his intention to grant prospecting
licences here for Base Metals, Barytes, Gold and Silver to a
Wexford-based mining company.
They'll be exploring in townslands across the city and county, in the
baronies 0f Callan, Crannagh, Kells, Knocktopher, and
Shillelogher.
Group Eleven Mining and Exploration Ltd, Cratloe, Ballyprecas,
Bunclody, Wexford will have the opportunity to explore for
resources in hundreds of townlands in both Tipperary and
Kilkenny. The license, if granted, will entitle Group Eleven Mining
and Exploration Ltd to explore for mineral deposits. It does not
authorise the mining of any minerals.
The activities permitted under such a licence are generally non-
invasive and of minimal environmental impact.
The minister has assessed the exploration programme proposed
by the company and has determined that the activities are not
likely to have a significant effect on the environment.
Objections to the grant of the licences should be made to the
address below within the next 21 days. The minister reserves the
right to make details of the objections available to the applicant in
order to fully consider their validity.
Here are the townlands named:
Townlands in Callan Barony
Ballyclovan, Ballyclovan Meadows, Ballywalter, Baunoge,
Baunreagh, Baunta, Baunta Commons, Bennettsmeadow,
Bigmeadow, Blackstaff, Bolton, Broadmore, Callan North, Callan
South, Cannafahy, Cappahenry, Cappahenry East, Cappass,
Castletobin, Castletobin East, Castletobin West, Clashacollare,
Commoge, Coolalong, Corbally, Cornyeal, Crossoge, Curkacrone,
Dirtystep, Drimeen, Drimeen North, Drimeen South, Earlsland,
Foulksrath, Gortnasragh, Graiguesmeadow, Haggartsgreen,
Kilbride, Kilbride Glebe, Kilminnick East, Kilminnick West,
Kylevehagh Commons, Lintaun, Loughooly, Maxtown, Minnauns,
Moanamought Commons, Moankeal Commons, Moanmore
Commons, Molassy, Monarche Commons, Mullaunglass, Pawlerth,
Prologue, Riversfield, Sheskin Commons, Skeaghacloran, Slade,
Tinnamoona, Westcourt Commons, Westcourt Demesne,
Westcourt North, Westcourt South, Whitesland.
Townlands in Crannagh Barony
Ardboy, Balleven, Ballycallan, Ballycuddihy, Ballyfrunk, Ballyhack,
Ballyhendricken, Ballykeefe (E.D. Kilmanagh), Ballykeefe (E.D.
Tullaghanbrogue), Ballykeefe Bog, Ballykeefe Hill,
Ballykeefecastle, Barrackhill (Barton), Barrackhill (Cranesborough),
Baungarriff, Bigbog, Bigmeadow, Bishopsfurze, Bonnetstown,
Brittasdryland, Burntfurze, Cloghoge, Clonard, Cooleeshal,
Coolgrange, Curragh, Curraghkehoe, Damma Lower, Damma
Upper, Deerpark, Doorath, Dunningstown, Goldenfield,
Gorteenteen, Graigue (Hartford), Graigue (Hayden), Keatingstown,
Kilballykeefe, Knockeenbaun, Knockeenglass, Kylenasaggart,
Loughmerans, Michaelschurch, Muck, Newtown (E.D. St. Canice),
Redeen, Sheeptown, Toberbreedia, Troyswood.
Townlands in Kells Barony
Ahanure North, Ahanure South, Attateenoe Lower, Attateenoe
Upper, Ballintee, Ballyfliugh, Ballyhall, Ballytobin, Barronsknock,
Baunatillaun, Bauneen, Baunemon, Bawnhubbamadereen,
Baysrath, Bog Commons, Boherawarraga, Bushtameen,
Caherlesk, Cappalauna, Clashavaha, Clincaun, Clone, Clonygarra,
Coolaghmore, Coologe, Courtnabooly East, Courtnabooly West,
Courtnabooly, Croghtabeg (Bunbury), Croghtabeg (Courtown),
Croneenlaun, Curragh, Danganbeg, Danganmore, Dunnamaggan
East, Dunnamaggan West, Garranmachenry, Garranstan,
Garrynamann Lower, Garrynamann Upper, Garryrickin, Glebe,
Goodwinsgarden, Gort Phaudeen, Grovebeg, Haggard, Kells,
Kellsborough, Kellsgrange, Killindra, Killinny, Kilree, Kiltallaghan,
Knockbutton, Kyle East, Kyle West, Kyleadohir, Kyleateera,
Lackendragaun, Laghtbrack, Lemonstown, Loughbeg,
Loughsollish, Mallardstown, Mallardstown East, Mallardstown
Great, Mallardstown Lower, Mallardstown Upper, Mallardstown
West, Mantingstown, Memory, Mill Island, Moangarve, Moanmore,
Monachunna, Monadubbaun, Monassa, Monawinnia, Newtown,
Physicianstown, Pollagh, Pollagh (E.D. Callan), Poulboy, Raheen,
Rathculbin, Rathduff, Rathduff (E.D. Bayley), Rathduff (Madden),
Rathduff Lower, Rathduff Upper, Rogerstown, Rossenarra,
Shancashlaun, Shortallstown, Spruceshay, Tinvaun, Trenchmore ,
Tuitestown, Tuitestown Little, Vinesgrove.
Townlands in Knocktopher Barony
Ballycoam, Barrettstown, Baunanattin, Baysrath, Bowersacre,
Carrigeen (E.D. Jerpointchurch), Carrigeen (E.D. Knocktopher),
Castlecolumb, Common, Cotterellsbooly, Croan, Floodhall or
Rathtooterny, Glebe, Knocknabooly, Knocktopher Abbey,
Knocktopher Commons, Knocktopher Manor (part), Monyheige
Commons, Oldtown, Ricesland, Sheepstown, Waltonsgrove or
Mountjuliet, Whitescastle Lower, Whitescastle Upper.
Townlands in Shillelogher Barony
Acraroe, Aghdenderry, Aghinraheen, Annamult, Aughtanny,
Ballybur, Ballybur Lower, Ballybur Upper, Ballybush, Ballyda,
Ballylarkin, Ballyline, Ballymack (Desart), Ballymack (Flood),
Ballyroberts, Baunavollaboy, Baunreagh (E.D. Stonyford), Booly,
Burnchurch, Burnchurch Viper, Cappafaulish, Cappahayden,
Castle Eve, Cherrymount, Church Hill, Coalsfarm, Coolapoge,
Coolnabrone, Coontraght, Cotterellsrath, Cronoge, Dairyhill,
Deerpark, Derreen, Desart Demesne, Drakeland Upper, Ennisnag,
Farmley, Foxcover, Garraun, Gorteennalee, Gortnacurragh,
Graigue Lower, Graigue Upper, Graigueooly, Grange, Greatoak,
Greatwood, Grove, Holdensrath, Kilbrickan, Killaloe, Knockadrina,
Knockavally, Knockreagh, Kyleandangan, Kylebeg, Kylenaskeagh,
Lakyle, Lawcus, Monavaddra, Muckmeadows, Newtown (Baker),
Newtown (Shea), Ovenstown, Paddock, Raheenduff, Redhouse,
Riesk, Rossdama, Rossmore, Ryelanes, Scotsborough,
Stonecarthy East, Stonecarthy West, Sunhill, Tingarran, Tinnakilly,
Tullamaine (Ashbrook), Tullamaine (Flood), Viperkells, Washers
Bog, Whitehouse, Woodlands.
Irish Times 01/03/2017
Give us your fucking money!"
"U2 accused of 'robbing the world's poor'"

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/feb/27/u2-irish-
aid-group-coalition
"The hypocrisy of Saint Bob and Saint Bono is (IMHO)

sickening"
http://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/archives/11364
"U2's Bono rakes in $1.4bn from Facebook investment -

more than he has ever made in his music career"
http://www.ibtimes.com.au/u2s-bono-rakes-14bn-
facebook-investment-more-he-has-ever-made-his-music-
career-1463707
"The hypocrisy of Bob Geldof"

http://www.cherwell.org/2014/11/26/the-hypocrisy-of-bob-
geldof/
...from an idea by Paul Kersey
CBD and cannabis in the

treatment of epilepsy
15-03-2016
Despite recent advances in the understanding and treatment
of epilepsy, up to 30% of people living with the condition do
not respond to existing anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) and
continue to experience regular, debilitating and potentially life-
threatening seizures.
Much needed research to find new and better treatments is
continuing around the world. In the past few years, there has
been a lot of discussion about the potential benefits of
cannabis and its derivatives in treating epilepsy, particularly
rare, devastating paediatric conditions such as Dravet
syndrome.
In the US, many states have approved cannabis for medical
use, and a small number of states have fully legalised it.
Additionally, other states have introduced legislation to permit
clinical trials of a pharmaceutical CBD drug called Epidolex
under tight regulation.
There have been an increasing number of reports of families in
the US for whom cannabis-based products have had success in
reducing seizures. This is thought to be because of the non-
psychoactive component of cannabis called cannabidiol (CBD).
In addition to the anecdotal reports, a limited number of
studies of CBD in animal models have shown anti-convulsant
effects but the mechanism of action is not yet understood.
Epidolex
Trials on Epidolex, a CBD-only pharmaceutical drug are
currently underway in the US, UK and other countries.
Epidiolex has not yet been approved for use by any national
regulatory authority but has received FDA Orphan Drug
Designation and Fast Track Designation in the US for both
Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome.
In March 2016, results of the first pivotal Phase 3 study of
Epidolex for Dravet syndrome were announced. The study
involved 120 patients (average age 10 years) who were
randomised to either Epidolex or placebo. After 14 weeks,
patients taking Epidiolex achieved a median reduction in
monthly convulsive seizures of 39% compared with a reduction
on placebo of 13%. These are positive findings and additional,
larger Phase 3 trials are now being conducted in Dravet
syndrome, with other trials underway or planned in Lennox-
Gastaut Syndrome and Tuberous Sclerosis Complex.
As an organisation that funds epilepsy research, Epilepsy
Ireland welcomes all research that seeks to develop safe and
effective treatments for epilepsy including these trials which
could potentially lead to a new approved treatment for people
with a range of devastating epilepsy syndromes.
The manufacturer of Epidolex, GW Pharmaceuticals is now
seeking regulatory approval for the drug in Europe and the US
for Dravet syndrome. Should Epidolex or any other epilepsy
treatment containing CBD be approved for use in Ireland,
Epilepsy Ireland will advocate for access to the drug for those
who could benefit from its prescribing.
Non Pharmaceutical products
A clear distinction needs to be drawn between products such
as Epidolex that are undergoing rigorous efficacy and safety
testing to achieve regulatory approval and non-pharmaceutical
products that are not licenced for medicinal use. There are
serious concerns about the safety and risks associated with
unregulated, unstandardised non-pharmaceutical products
containing cannabis extracts, in particular those that contain
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psycho-active element
in cannabis.
While there have been positive anecdotal accounts of these
products, particularly in the US, there have also been reports of
cannabis/ CBD products making seizures worse in children, as
well as other negative side effects. Some animal studies have
also highlighted the potential for CBD to be pro-convulsant
(increasing the risk of a seizure) in some cases.
Currently, no robust evidence from high quality scientific
studies exists to support the use of non-pharmaceutical
cannabis-based products for the treatment of epilepsy. In
relation to these products, individual successful cases do not
provide strong enough evidence to expose large amounts of
people to the unknown and unquantifiable risks associated
with unregulated, unstandardised products. In the absence of
robust evidence, these products cannot be considered as safe
or effective treatments for epilepsy.
Given the devastating impact of conditions like Dravet
Syndrome and the limited success of existing drugs in treating
these rare conditions, it is understandable that many affected
families will want to reach out to investigate potential new
treatment avenues. However, further research, in the form of
well-regulated clinical trials represent the only safe and
objective way to assess the potential that any CBD or cannabis
product may hold in the mainstream treatment of epilepsy.
Further research in this area is badly needed and Epilepsy
Ireland remains open to receiving and assessing funding
applications under our Research Funding Scheme from
researchers who want to pursue this area of research.
Legal position
In Ireland, cannabis is currently a Schedule 1 drug controlled
under the Misuse of Drugs legislation which makes it an
offence to be in possession of cannabis or many of its extracts
(including THC). CBD itself is not a controlled substance under
Irish law. However, a product that contains CBD is also likely to
contain additional substances that are controlled under
legislation. If a CBD-based product contains other substances
e.g THC in quantities which would bring that product within the
Misuse of Drugs Acts, it is a controlled substance and it is
illegal to import, possess or supply it.
Additionally, even if the product is true CBD-only, it may meet
the definition of a medicinal product, which would require it to
have the appropriate authorisation or registration in Ireland.
http://www.epilepsy.ie/index.cfm/spKey/news.epilepsy/spId/A3FD000
3-CB64-43A9-BC9724D804178E6F.html
Cannabidiol and medical marijuana for the
treatment of epilepsy
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/epi.
12647/epdf
The case for medical marijuana in epilepsy
2014
12610/epdf
Cannabidiol- Pharmacology and potential
therapeutic role in epilepsy and other
neuropsychiatric disorders
12631/epdf
MEDICAL RESEARCH CHARITIES
GROUP/HEALTH RESEARCH BOARD
MRCG/HRB Joint Funding Scheme 2016
http://www.epilepsy.ie/assets/71/5171DE91-
5F93-4EE4-
87FDDDCFB54B1024_document/MRCG-
HRB_Applicant_Guidance_Notes_2016_FINAL.
pdf
Common Administrative Errors When submitting an application for
funding, please ensure that the common application form errors
below are not present on your form.
http://www.epilepsy.ie/assets/46/DFE467DC-CCA2-4AD4-
8E288F10290C74A9_document/Common_Application_form_errors.pd
f
MRCG/HRB Joint Funding Scheme 2016 Epilepsy Ireland Notes for
Applicants Application deadline- 4th December 2015
http://www.epilepsy.ie/assets/98/3389816C-C605-4589-
9DC00265A655F409_document/EI_Notes_to_Applicants_2016.pdf
s part of our on-going commitment to supporting Irish epilepsy
research, Epilepsy Ireland invites applications for epilepsy-
focused research projects of up to a three-year duration to a
maximum of 50,000 p.a. Proposals funded under this call will
begin in September 2016.
We encourage proposals for all types of research including
basic, clinical, psychosocial and health services research.
Proposals that cover one or more of the following research
areas are particularly welcome in the current funding round:
c Development of improved diagnosis, treatments or support
interventions
c Genetics of epilepsy
c Psychosocial aspects/ impact of epilepsy
c Epilepsy and education
c Use of assistive technology in epilepsy
c Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy and other epilepsy
deaths
c Epilepsy in specific demographics such as children/ young
adults; the elderly; people with an intellectual disability;
women; men
c Rare epilepsy syndromes
All proposals received by Epilepsy Ireland will be subjected to a
rigorous three-stage peer review process:
Stage 1: International Peer review & Applicant's Right to Reply
Stage 2: Evaluation by Epilepsy Ireland's Research Peer Review
Board
Stage 3: Highest ranking proposals submitted for consideration
under the Joint Funding Scheme operated by the Medical
Research Charities Group & the Health Research Board.
Successful projects will be funded jointly by Epilepsy Ireland
and the HRB from September 2016. This is the fifth round of
funding provided under Epilepsy Ireland's Research Funding
Scheme. To date, eight projects have been funded since 2010
with over 780,000 euro in funding approved. Further details
on these projects are available here.
Application forms, HRB guidance notes and Epilepsy Ireland
guidance can be downloaded below. Applications must be
submitted in full on the official application form on or before
December 4th 2015.
Applicants: Please ensure your email size is less than 5MB
when submitting. If it is more, please break up attachments to
>1 email or call us for guidance (details below)
See also the list of common application form errors below and
also this list produced by the HRB recently.
MicroRNAs in the mechanism

of ketogenic diet therapies
and as biomarkers in
paediatric epilepsy
PROJECT TITLE:
MicroRNAs in the mechanism of ketogenic diet therapies and as
biomarkers in paediatric epilepsy
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:
Prof David Henshall
Professor of Molecular Physiology & Neuroscience, Royal College of
Surgeons in Ireland
INVESTMENT:
144,484 over three years. 50% of the funding for this project has
been made available by the Health Research Board (HRB) through
the Joint Funding Scheme operated by the HRB and the Medical
Research Charities Group, of which Epilepsy Ireland is a member.
Epilepsy Ireland will fund the other 50% through fundraising.
ABOUT PROF HENSHALL:
Prof. Henshall is the Director of the Experimental Epilepsy Research
group at RCSI. His team currently comprises 10 researchers whose
major research focuses include the role of non-coding RNA
(including microRNA) in the development of epilepsy, the modelling
and treatment of neonatal seizures, ATP-gated ion channels as
targets for seizure control, and molecular biomarkers of epilepsy.
Prof Henshall is also Co-Director of The Centre for the Study of
Neurological Disorders, also based at RCSI.
ABOUT THE PROJECT:
Prof Henshall explains:
Epilepsy is a disease caused by imbalances in electrical activity in
the brain. Anyone can have epilepsy but it is particular common in
children. Patients experience seizures which disrupt their lives and
can be directly harmful to the developing brain. Although we have a
number of drugs to stop seizures, they fail to work in about a third
of children. The ketogenic diet (KD) represents an alternative
treatment. Clinical and scientific studies show that by altering how
much fat and carbohydrates are consumed this switches how the
body obtains its energy. For reasons we do not understand this
reduces the occurrence of seizures. A key problem is that only half
of children placed on the diet show an improvement. Doctors need
something to help them know who will respond.
We are interested in a group of molecules found in cells called
microRNAs. Their job is to dampen down gene activity by reducing
protein levels. Recent work showed that microRNAs are important
for controlling the excitability of the brain. We and others have
found that blood levels of some microRNA are different in adults
with epilepsy. We think this is because the brain makes unique
microRNAs and stress or injury such as occurs in epilepsy results in
the appearance of these molecules in the blood. We also have
animal model evidence that the ketogenic diet directly alters brain
levels of certain microRNAs.
The proposed research will investigate whether microRNA levels in
blood samples or other body fluids (urine, saliva) can tell us which
children with epilepsy will do best on the ketogenic diet. These
studies will give doctors a new way to predict which children will do
best on the diet and shed new light on how the diet works.
http://www.epilepsy.ie/index.cfm/spKey/research.current_projects.ht
ml
I am asking for the space'
- Harris appeals for more
time to reach deal on CF
drugs
Eilish O'Regan
February 27 2017
Health Minister Simon Harris has appealed
for a few more weeks to finalise discussions
on a price deal for the cystic fibrosis drugs
Orkambi and Kalydeco.
He appealed to campaigners who are desperate to make
the drugs available to allow him space.
Around 500 people with cystic fibrosis are appealing for
access to Orkambi but the price originally demanded by
the makers Vertex was deemed too expensive for the HSE.
There is also pressure to extend access to Kalydeco for
younger children with the disease.
He said tonight that he expects the talks on the deal to be
concluded in a matter of weeks.
The main priority is to make sure that any agreement
reached would provide certainty to Irish patients on the
provision of Orkambi, Kalydeco and other drugs now and
in the future, he said.
I am extremely conscious that the last number of months
have been an extraordinarily stressful and worrying time
for many CF patients and their families.
"However, progress has been made and this process is now
entering a critical phase. I am asking for the space for this
process to be concluded with the objective that we can
achieve a deal which provides certainty now and in the
future.
"Given the level of investment and the scale of the
potential benefits for CF patients, there are important
commercial and contractual aspects which have to be
agreed in the interests of patients and the health service
overall.
"In asking for the space to bring finality to this matter, I
wish to assure CF patients and families that I believe the
process can be concluded in a period of weeks."
A protest at the ongoing delays in the talks is to take place
outside Leinster House on Wednesday.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/i-am-asking-for-the-
space-harris-appeals-for-more-time-to-reach-deal-on-cf-drugs-
35488300.html
Coveney: Leadership is about vision,
not private issues
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Conor Kane
Would-be taoiseach Simon Coveney has said he hopes the
commentary surrounding the Fine Gael leadership
contest will be about ideas, vision, and drive rather than
any candidates personal life.
Mr Coveney said he is not getting into a formal leadership

pitch until after Enda Kenny confirms his position
following the Taoiseachs March visit to Washington.
Obviously there are conversations going on within the
party, thats to be expected, but there isnt a formal
leadership contest under way yet, the Housing Minister
said yesterday.
There is not a process under way yet. That will start after
St Patricks Day and there will be plenty of opportunities at
that stage to outline my views as to how the party should
move forward.
Mr Coveney was asked if it annoyed him that some media
coverage focussed on pictures of him and his family,
compared with pictures of Leo Varadkar, who is gay, on his
own or with his partner.
He said: Ive made it clear that this should be about
ideas, it should be about a vision for the country, it should
be about a persons record in terms of how theyve
performed to date, whether they have the energy and
talent and intelligence to do the job and whether they
have a vision for the country and the party that can garner
support within the party.
Thats what it should be about, not about peoples private
lives or their family and I think the more we focus on what
a new leader for the country and the Fine Gael party can
do, primarily for the country but also for the future of Fine
Gael, the better.
He was also asked if he believed the public have a right to
know what a potential taoiseachs family arrangements
are.
Im not getting into that, he said. Im not going to add
to the commentary.
People in the party who know me well will make
judgements but I hope people will be discussing this issue
on the basis of ideas and vision and drive and energy and
whats positive for the country, as opposed to peoples
personal lives.
Mr Coveney laughed when a description by a newspaper
columnist of him as boring was put to him.
Look, I think most people that know me well know that
people like to create caricatures of people, he said.
I certainly dont think I am, but Ill leave other people
judge that.
Leo Varadkar has denied he has struck a formal
agreement with leadership rival Simon Coveney but the
two have had discussions around the future of the party.
Mr Varadkar said he is looking forward to the leadership
campaign and wants to turn Fine Gael into a fighting
force again.
It comes after Taoiseach Enda Kenny told a parliamentary
party meeting that he would be dealing with the
leadership issue on his return from his St Patricks Day
visit to the White House.
Mr Varadkar confirmed that he had spoken with Mr
Coveney ahead of this meeting last Wednesday.
advertisement
Were in touch. We get on very well. Weve known each

other for years. Were a similar age. We meet and chat all
the time and the two of us are very determined to make
sure that whatever the outcome is that the partys united
thereafter and that it can do well, he said.
He said both were of the view that the feeling of the vast
majority of people in the parliamentary party was to avoid
a motion of no confidence, avoid division and
divisiveness.
However, he said that no formal agreement had been
struck between the two favourites to take over from Enda
Kenny and ruled out a similar deal to that of Labours Tony
Blair and Gordon Brown in the UK.
We know each other, we talk, but we dont have formal
agreements or a joint strategy or anything like that, Mr
Varadkar told RTs Marian Finucane show.
A poll over the weekend put the Social Protection Minister
and the Housing Minister within two points of each other
with Mr Varadkar on 29% and Mr Coveney on 27%. Mr
Varadkar said the formal campaign has not started and
other senior party figures could not be ruled out of the
race for leadership.
I know the media focus is all on me and Simon, I think it
is important to remind people that there are lots of other
leading figures in Fine Gael too, people like Richard
Bruton, Frances Fitzgerald, Paschal [Donohoe], Simon
Harris and others.
So I dont think people should make the assumption that
its all about us, he said.
A spokeswoman for Mr Coveney said both men have
offices on the same corridor so speak regularly and have a
good relationship.
However, she said there was no formal meeting before the
parliamentary party meeting last week.
Over the weekend it was reported that Mr Coveney told
supporters that he would he would be making sure that
Fine Gael would draw a line in the sand with Fianna Fil
on certain core issues and if they crossed that line he
would be prepared to call an election.
Government chief whip Regina Doherty said the party was
in a pre-contest phase.
Varadkar is being uncharacteristically cautious which begs
the question would he maintain this
stance as leader or return to his fearless and maverick
ways,
Fine Gael leadership hopeful Leo Varadkar has said he is
willing to enter TV debates with other contenders.
The Social Protection Minister also plans to seek

suggestions within Fine Gael about changes to the
leadership or the role of Taoiseach.
It is understood a number of broadcasters, including TV3,
have informally approached potential successors to Mr
Kenny.
Mr Varadkar said that he would not encourage any
negative campaigning during the leadership race.
This comes after weekend reports that his side is prepared

to wage a war against other contenders, namely
Housing Minister Simon Coveney. However, Mr Varadkar
said his team wanted an amicable race.
I think it is very important that, between now and the
campaign ... we all understand that we are in the same
party and we all understand we have to work together
afterwards for the good of the party and the good of the
country, he said.
Asked if he was prepared to engage in TV debates, he
said: I would be very happy to take part in a TV debate
but the main thing in the Fine Gael rules is the number of
regional hustings for our party members and that will be
the key focus.
TV3 said it was interested in hosting the debates, but
nothing was arranged yet.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny and then tnaiste Joan Burton on

the eve of last year's general election, when both parties
haemorrhaged votes.
FEBRUARY 27, 2016, was the day Fine Gaels electoral

nightmare was realised. As ballot box after ballot box was
opened, more bad news tumbled out.
Exactly a year later and another election seems only a
breath away, because Enda Kennys party has engaged in
internal leadership spats, has continuously quarrelled with
its Independent partners, and has failed to implement
significant change. The creaking minority coalition, with its
reliance on Fianna Fil, is stagnating the working of
government.
If an election was to be called in the morning, Fine Gaels
support would undoubtedly slide further. Fianna Fil and
Sinn Fin would claw more seats from them.
While Mr Kenny and his cohorts have nothing major to
shout about the country is still suffering from lengthy
hospital waiting lists, a housing crisis, industrial strife at
Bus ireann, a garda whistleblower scandal, and bracing
itself for Brexit this time last year there were doubts
over whether a government could be formed at all. Many
then questioned whether, after a shaky start and
protracted formation talks, it could possibly last.
On February 25, 2016, the eve of the election, Enda Kenny
met then Labour leader, Joan Burton, in Dublins shiny
docklands, at a hipster cafe.
Blissfully unaware that both parties would haemorrhage
votes and elected members in the next 48 hours, they
sipped tea and spouted the line that the Fine Gael-Labour
coalition was the only viable option.
Ms Bruton now sits stripped of the party leader title
on the lonely opposition benches, while Mr Kenny is
nearing the end of his own partys leadership.
From the opposition benches, Fianna Fils Michel Martin
pulls many of the strings and increasingly can be seen
smiling over at Mr Kennys seat, eyeing it up.
Someone else biding their time is Mary-Lou McDonald,
currently stunted by Sinn Fin president, Gerry Adams. But
McDonald, the deputy leader, surely sees her party
growing with her at the helm.
Election 2016 also saw a clatter of new, mainly
Independent, faces joining the opposition ranks, while the
AAA-PBP swelled in numbers and the Green Party were
welcomed back, claiming two seats in the Dil chamber.
While Lucinda Creightons Renua party failed to win a
single seat, the other newly-formed group, the Social
Democrats, secured three seats, but, by September,
Stephen Donnelly had quit the party he had helped to
form.
Lucinda Creighton
As the tallies began to come in this day a year ago, it

became clear that something had gone drastically wrong
for Fine Gael.
Mr Kennys party had lost the centre both
geographically and poetically speaking of Ireland, which
had traditionally been the heart of their support.
Large swathes of voters down the middle of the county,
and on into Munster, who, historically, would have ticked
the FG box, simply didnt.
In Tipperary, two Fine Gael TDs one of them a minister
of state were not re-elected. While the constituency
boundary changes in Tipperary might have shuffled the
votes around somewhat, they did not explain why then
junior agriculture minister, Tom Hayes, and his well-
established colleague, Noel Coonan, failed to win a seat.
A clatter of other high-profile Fine Gael members were
kicked out, including ministers James Reilly, Jimmy
Deenihan, and Alan Shatter.
The tide was out and the Keep the Recovery Going
campaign, which the Fine Gael strategy gurus insisted on
clinging onto, fell flat down the spine of the country.
In places like Longford, Athlone, Tullamore, and Thurles,
the recovery hadnt even arrived, so how could it have
kept going? The only place any recovery was going was
straight past the people of rural and middle Ireland.
Fine Gael massively misjudged the moment.
Many of the successes were by the skin of their teeth
wins, such as in Wexford, where Michael DArcy and Paul
Kehoe took the final two seats, and likewise in Louth,
where Fergus ODowd and Peter Fitzpatrick claimed the
last two places.
In the end, Fine Gael came back with 50 seats 26 fewer
than it secured in the 2011 general election. On the flip-
side, Fianna Fil boosted their numbers by 24, returning 44
TDs.
Since then, Fine Gael have consigned their Keep the
Recovery Going slogan to a dark cupboard, never to be
opened again apart from when members of the
opposition try to prise it ajar.
After limping through the election, Fine Gael began
courting smaller parties and Independents to form a
government. Fianna Fil also made half-hearted attempts
to form their own minority government.
The Lannigans Ball continued for more than 70 days, with
the party vying for the support of the odd collection of
Independents that stepped in and out of Government
Buildings, as Enda Kenny played the part of squatter
Taoiseach.
As spring edged to a close, the Confidence in Supply
agreement was initiated in the privacy of Fianna Fil TD,
Jim OCallaghans kitchen, before the political enemies
moved to the more neutral territory of the provosts house
in Trinity College.
Government was finally formed on May 6, 2016.
Since then, the minority government has clung on, but
that has been more because of Fianna Fils aversion to
going back to the people than because of anything Fine
Gael and the Independents have done.
The Government seems to have done almost everything in
its capacity to bring on an election rather than stave one
off.
Sharing power with a group of Independents was never
going to be easy, but bring Shane Ross into the equation
and it adds another dimension entirely.
Mr Ross had an uncomfortable bedding-in period.
The transport minister clashed with Fine Gael on a number
of issues among them abortion and judicial
appointments just as they were getting to know each
other.
John Halligan also weighed in, and disagreements over
water charges, as well as a second cath lab for Waterford
Hospital, ensued.
Still, the Government managed to trundle on.
With five members of the one so-called alliance each
prioritising issues as diverse as flooding; judicial
appointments; services for a regional hospital; the
Stardust tragedy and rural roads, its a miracle they have
stayed together, let alone held up the Government.
While the Independent Alliance bickered and bellowed,
both with themselves and with Fine Gael, the two other
Independent ministers, Denis Naughten and Katherine
Zappone, exercised restraint.
That was until recently, when Ms Zappone, who had
remained loyal to Mr Kenny from the very beginning, dealt
an almost fatal blow to the Taoiseach and to the
Government itself.
The scandal centred around false allegations of child sex
abuse contained in a Tusla file on Sergeant Maurice
McCabe. It ended with the extraordinary act of the
Taoiseach standing up in the Dil and admitting he was
guilty of putting out a wrong account of discussions with
Ms Zappone.
Maurice McCabe
Governments have fallen on far lesser issues and for a few
frantic days his now famous mea culpa speech and the
he-said-she-said antics that led up to, and indeed followed
it, put the Government on the brink of election.
The McCabe scandal showed just how weak the current
Government is and how lucky it has been to survive the
past year.
But an election is not something that Fine Gael would
either want or need right now.
While Fine Gael uncomfortably try to balance power with
the Independents and Fianna Fil, other parties have been
quietly building from opposition.
Labour, for example, has already developed a concrete
strategy, ready to be rolled-out in the event of a snap
election, and is to hold selection conventions in five
constituencies in the coming weeks.
Other parties are sure to be involved in the same quiet
campaigning Fianna Fil members have been told by
headquarters to be out and about and ramping-up activity
in their constituencies.
Fine Gael, on the other hand, dont even know who will be
leading them into a general election.
Disabled Grace left in

foster care for 20 years
despite abuse claims
Shane Phelan
February 28 2017
Former health minister Michael Noonan. His then office requested
a health board report Photo: Steve Humphreys
Health service staff failed in their duty of
care towards an intellectually disabled girl
who was left in a foster home for 20 years
despite evidence she and other children
were being abused, a report has found.
The girl, now a woman known as Grace, was allowed to
remain in the home in the south east for 13 years after an
allegation of sexual abuse was made against her foster
father.
She was also not removed despite presenting at day
services with unexplained bruising and a black eye,
according to a report by consultants Conal Devine and
Associates, which has been seen by the Irish Independent.
A commission of investigation into the affair is expected to
be announced shortly.
Action was not taken even though health workers noted in
the mid-1990s that the girl would strip off her clothes and
engage in other "chaotic behaviour", such as wolfing down
her food, stealing dinners and headbutting other children.
A second report, also being published by the HSE today,
by consultants Resilience Ireland, details allegations that a
second child was locked in a cupboard at the home by the
foster mother.
The Devine report was unable to get to the bottom of why
a decision taken in April 1996 to remove the girl from the
home, on account of the sexual abuse allegation against
her male carer, was later overturned.
It detailed how the foster parents wrote to then health
minister Michael Noonan that August in an effort to
appeal her removal. There is no suggestion he intervened
on their behalf.
His officials requested a report from the health board,
which responded saying it had grounds for believing it was
in the girl's best interests to be removed. A local school
principal subsequently wrote to Mr Noonan's office in
support of Grace remaining in the foster home.
The letter was forwarded to the health board, along with a
request for a further report on the matter.
Mr Noonan's office was told the principal's views would be
taken into account in deliberations on Grace's future care.
The report said the decision to remove her was overturned
that October and the reasons why remain in dispute.
It was noted at the case conference where the decision was
taken that there was "no evidence" Grace's welfare was not
being met.
Yet a decision was taken at the same meeting not to place
any other children there.
The male carer died in 2001, but health authorities were
not immediately informed.
Fresh plans to remove Grace were resisted by the foster
mother, who said she depended on the placement for
income.
Grace was eventually removed from the home in 2009
following the intervention of social workers at a day
service she was attending. By then she was 31 years old
and had been in the home for 20 years.
The Devine report said its investigators believed she had
suffered abuse while living with the family.
It outlined a long list of failings by the health services in
the area. Although the home should have been subject to
six-monthly reviews, there was none.
After Grace turned 18 the team responsible for her
changed from a foster care team to one at adult mental
handicap services.
Specific staff were supposed to follow up decisions made
about her care. But the report said there was confusion
about who was supposed to do what.
There were no records of decisions taken at a crucial case
conference being followed up and the report concluded
there had been a failure in the duty of care towards Grace.
It also found new staff were not told about the situation.
No one looked into the reasons why she was not moved to
a residential placement many years earlier.
Although the Devine report was completed in 2012 and the
Resilience Ireland report in 2015, the publication of both
investigations was delayed due to ongoing Garda
investigations.
No one has ever been charged with an offence in relation
to her care.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/disabled-grace-left-in-
foster-care-for-20-years-despite-abuse-claims-35488706.html
Bursts of electricity to
help target tumours
February 28 2017
Dr Declan Soden, principal investigator at the Cork Cancer
Centre, where a new treatment for oesophageal cancer
sufferers has been developed
Short bursts of electrical energy can help
improve the response to chemotherapy
treatment in patients with oesophageal
cancer.
Dr Declan Soden, principal investigator at the Cork Cancer
Research Centre, has developed the technique aimed
directly at the tumour.
The oesophagus carries food from the mouth to the
stomach.
The energy burst makes the tumour "leaky" and allows for
improved take-up of chemotherapy.
The research is being funded by the Oesophageal Cancer
Fund, which is holding its annual fundraising Lollipop Day
on March 3 and 4.
The charity was set up in 2001 by Dubliner Noelle Ryan
and a small group of women mourning the loss of a friend.
Ms Ryan, who is now chief executive of the Oesophageal
Cancer Fund, said: "If you had told me 16 years ago that
what began as six of us trying to honour our friend Lucilla
would grow to funding development of new technologies
in treatment like electro-shock tumour therapy, I
genuinely would not have believed it.
"We could not do this without the generosity and support
of the public. We receive no other funding.
"We rely entirely on the public supporting Lollipop Day.
We are heartened by our achievements to date but the
figures speak for themselves."
She said Dublin has seen almost a doubling in diagnoses of
the cancer over 20 years with major increases also
observed in north Tipperary, Wexford and Waterford.
Irish rates of oesophageal cancer remain among the
highest in Europe.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/bursts-of-electricity-to-
help-target-tumours-35488735.html
Prescription charge for

over-70s cut from 2.50
to 2
Eilish O'Regan
February 28 2017
The prescription charge for 390,000 people
over 70 who have medical cards will reduce
from 2.50 to 2 tomorrow.
It means the maximum they will pay per month will also
come down from 25 to 20.
Minister for Health Simon Harris today announced that
390,000 people over 70 years with a medical card,
including their dependents, will benefit from reductions to
prescription charges.
The measure was announced in the October Budget and
follows pressure to ease the financial pressures caused by
the unpopular charge.
There will no be change for other groups of people with
medical cards.
Mr Harris said: "From tomorrow, Wednesday 1st March,
prescription charges will be reduced from 2.50 to 2.00
per item and in addition the maximum monthly limit will
be reduced from 25 to 20 per person or family per
month.
"These changes will benefit over 390,000 medical card
holders, advancing a key Programme for Government
commitment to reduce the cost of medicines for medical
card holders.
"I am very pleased to be in a position to announce its
immediate effect.
"Naturally as we grow older, we require more medical help
and assistance and from tomorrow, 390,000 of our older
friends and family will pay less for their medicines."
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/prescription-charge-for-
over70s-cut-from-250-to-2-35490273.html
THE IRISH FACE OF FAKE NEWS ~ The wannabe cop who
has been found out! Paul Williams is the darling of RTE and
Official Ireland. This crime correspondent even had Garda
Commisioner Norin O' Sullivan at one of his book launches.
He gets all his information from Garda sources, regardless
of whether such information is accurate. It is a nice little
arrangement, whereby the Gardai put out whatever they
want in the publi domain, even if such information is
untrue or defamatory, knowing that Williams and his
editors will lap it all up like a kitten with a bowl of whisked
cream. So it was no surprise that Williams, through his
opinion pieces in Dennis O' Brien's Independent
Newspapers, has demonised and attacked the integrity
and credibility of the Garda Whistleblowers Maurice
McCabe and John Wilson on and off since 2014. So cringe
worthy are his articles that it was almost as if the Garda
Press Office were the authors. The Real Irish Media does
not know the identity of the journalist who approached
Superintendant David Taylor with a smear on Maurice
McCabe. We are not suggesting that the person was Paul
Williams. But whoever it was, obviously has the ear of the
Garda top brass and he or she should be stripped of their
NUJ card and named and shamed. The likes of that hack
and Paul Williams feed off the juicy stories which the
Gardai give them and such activity no doubt has put lives
in danger. Let's hope that the Charleton Investigation also
shines a light on the corrupt relationship between certain
sections of the media and the nation's law enforcement.
Because it is one very dirty and sick relationship.
Inside Apollo House The untold Story

Feb 24, 2017
This is the inside story of how a group of people took over a
NAMA-controlled former office block in Dublin city centre and
turned it into a shelter for the homeless. The story of Home
Sweet Home Eire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zptEVbAwMqQ
Poll: Would you watch Coveney and Varadkar going toe-to-
toe in a live debate?
react-text: 6 RESULTS /react-text

react-text: 9 1556 Votes /react-text
Yes41%
No54%
I'm not sure4%
Coveney needs to
clarify claims and
publish legal advice
Boylan
1 March, 2017 - by Lynn Boylan MEP
Speaking this morning, Sinn Fin MEP Lynn Boylan has called
for Minister Simon Coveney to publish the legal advice given to
him by the Attorney General in relation to the legal position of
European Commission in relation to water charges and
subsequent fines, given that she has legal advice to the
contrary.
MEP Boylan said:
It is imperative in the interest of trust and truth that Minister
Coveney come forward with his legal advice that Ireland would
incur EU fines if water legislation does not have a provision for
excessive use. The reason that the advice needs to be
published is because there is legal advice to the contrary as
well as a dearth of information of obfuscation and
deceitfulness on behalf of the European Commission on this
subject. Not to mention the academic research that shows
household metering to be ineffective and not good value for
money if the aim is to conserve water. All of which Minister
Coveney and sections of the Irish media find it convenient to
ignore.
There needs to be clarity around the EU commission position
on water charges instead of conveniently hiding behind simple
narratives because of fear of the complexity of the Water
Framework Directive.
Before the EU Commission embarked on their own
mendacious campaign, they clearly stated that Ireland could
avail of a derogation on water charges in its second River Basin
Management plan and that there could be no judgement cast
on Irelands compliance until that plan is submitted later in
December this year.
Most importantly, in relation to Minister Coveneys comments
yesterday, he either forgot or ignored to mention a significant
point, that the Water framework directive is up for review
within the next two years and that will give the Irish
Government, and Irish MEPs, the opportunity to further
strengthen Irelands model of water management.
Sinn Fein and our legal opinion believes that with the proper
investment in water infrastructure and the rolling out of a
comprehensive water conservation education programme,
Ireland would be able to demonstrate its full compliance with
the objectives of the water framework directive.
A final point in all this that needs to be raised is Fine
Gaels breathtaking hypocrisy on the EU, Coveney and his Fine
Gael colleagues have no problem at all spending millions of
taxpayers money on defending Apple, yet when it comes to
defending the democratic wishes of the people against the EU,
it is back to the forelock tugging.
http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/43693
Fine Gael-Fianna Fil rift over water

charges may spark election
FF bid to scrap excessive use charge ruled out by Coveney
as move would be illegal.
Simon Coveney: Said he was willing to consider the option

of refunds.
Fine Gael and Fianna Fil are on a collision course over

scrapping water charges in a fresh row which has moved
the country closer to the threat of a snap general election.
Fianna Fil wants to permanently abolish water bills,
including any charge for excessive use, a move Housing
Minister Simon Coveney definitively ruled out last night.
Mr Coveney said that he would not, as an office holder,
bring in any legislation that was contrary to EU law or the
advice of the Attorney General, or exposed the country to
huge fines.
Fine Gael wants some charge to remain for excessive use
or wastage. The minister said Fianna Fil had changed its
position only in the last few days.
Any [committee] recommendation has to be consistent
with the water framework directive in our view, otherwise
we will essentially be introducing a new water regime
which would be illegal, he said.
And the European Commission have made it very clear
that they will take action and I will not do anything that
will potentially expose the State to very significant
penalties and fines. Im just not going to do that as a
minister.
The row intensified after Fianna Fil earlier in the day
revealed that it favoured refunds and an end to homes
being metered, but also opposed any future charge for
excessive use.
A system of refunds would cost over 160m, and an end
to household metering would raise questions about the
500m already spent on water meters. Mr Coveney
yesterday said he may be willing to consider the option of
refunds
Fianna Fil outlined its position to an Oireachtas
committee on water charges, and its stance means the
group could recommend to the Dil a system of refunds
but possibly also the abolishing of charges if an excessive
water levy is also ruled out.
This last point shocked Fine Gael members, with one
senior party source saying last night: If Fianna Fil
maintains its position, there will be a general election in a
few months.
Fianna Fils Barry Cowen told the Irish Examiner his party
supported refunds and did not buy the idea of an
excessive use charge.
We dont believe there is an excessive use, its leakage
that is the problem, he said.
Fianna Fil says existing legislation can be used to fine
households wasting water and general taxation can fund
services.
It is also standing by legal advice it received which claims
scrapping water bills is in line with EU rules, as Ireland
received a derogation or exemption previously.
The partys position means 10 of 20 members on the
committee now formally oppose any future water charges,
when the stance of Sinn Fin, AAA, and Independents are
included.
Those groups also oppose any more home water meters
being installed and instead want district metering, which is
used in Scotland.
Those in favour of charging include the six Fine Gael
members and one Labour TD. The position of two
Independent members and a Green TD remain unknown.
AAA-PBP member Mick Barry said the view of the
committee now signalled a victory for the Irish people
after huge protests.
What the parliament does, the street can undo, he said.
Sinn Fin TD Eoin Broin said the development was a
win for ordinary people.
Im pretty confident we have seen the end of water
charges once and for all, he said.
With Fianna Fil opposing an excessive charge, the
Government may be forced into permanently scrapping
charges. The confidence and supply deal between the
parties states they both reserve their right to adopt
differing positions on water.
It also states the Government will be the ones to pass
legislation on recommendations on charges, even if this
includes their abolition.
However, Mr Coveneys insistence that the Government
will not breach EU law means that its potentially prepared
for the first time to risk collapsing its confidence and
supply agreement. Without Fianna Fils support in the
Dil, the Government would have no choice but to call a
general election.
Mr Coveney denied he would be breaching the agreement
if he refuses to pass any legislation on charges, as the
deal did not include obliging office holders to break the
law. The minister said he wanted all sides to reach a
compromise.
The Oireachtas committee resumes deliberations today.
Fianna Fil has come under fire for its position on water
charges, in the latest Dil debate on water charges.
It is refusing to support a Sinn Fin motion calling for

water to be paid through general taxation, even though
that's its own position.
During the debate Sinn Fin's Louise O'Reilly said Fianna

Fil had "more positions than the Kama Sutra" on the
issue.
But housing minister Simon Coveney defended the expert

group on water, and said the system DID need major
investment.
"When I was a minister for agriculture it was made crystal

clear to me - in conference after conference after
conference - that one of the very few, and you can count
them on one hand, the number of countries in the world
that dont have any predicted water security issues and
Ireland is on the top of the list."
Sinn Fin President Gerry Adams TD said: Call it political

manoeuvring. Call it doublespeak. But dont call it new
politics. Its vintage Fianna Fil politics. Its all about the
party and the lust for power.
The fact is there is a necessity to scrap water charges

without delay. That is the only way the debacle of water
charges and Irish Water will be dealt with.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/fg-ff-rift-over-water-charges-
may-spark-election-444115.html
So many questions... what's

happening with water charges?
Fianna Fil and Fine Gael are at loggerheads over water charges
again.
4 hours ago 8,014 Views 131 Comments
Share Tweet Email
Text content
Anti-water charges protester.
Source: Rollingnews.ie
IS IT THE end of water charges? Anti-Austerity Alliance-
People Before Profit (AAA-PBP) members think so, but Fine
Gael isnt giving up without a fight.
We are on the brink of a historic victory, TD Mick Barry
told reporters yesterday.
We are in the last 10 minutes of the cup final now. Our team,
the Anti-Water Charges team, holds the lead but were not in
the slightest bit complacent on this and we will fight like
men and women possessed over the month of March to
ensure that when the final whistle goes, we will be the
winners.
Yesterday, members of Fianna Fil stood with their
colleagues in the Future of Water Services committee who
are seeking the abolition of all domestic charges including
those mooted in cases of excessive use.
In a private meeting, TDs discussed the committees draft
report with Fianna Fil, Sinn Fin and AAA-PBP agreeing
that there should be no re-introduction of charges.
The committee has made no formal decision on the matter
and there was a twist late last night when Housing Minister
Simon Coveney stamped out any celebrations of the AAA-
PBP group by stating that he would not be legislating for the
abolition of the water charges regime, claiming to do so
would be in breach of EU law.
Z Coveney says he will not legislate for
water charges abolition as it would be
illegal >
European Commission I wont do that, Coveney told
reporters.
Why was the committee set-up in the first place?
The 20-member Joint Committee was set up after
government formation talks last year.
Water charges was one of the main issues that could have
prevented Fianna Fil and Fine Gael signing up to the
confidence and supply agreement (which basically keeps the
current minority arrangement ticking along).
Ultimately, an agreement was reached and an expert
commission was established to make recommendations to
allow for a sustainable long-term funding model for the
delivery of domestic water and wastewater services by Irish
Water.
It delivered its report in November and recommended that
the vast majority of consumers will not have to pay direct
charges for water.
The cross-party committee was then established to discuss
the future of water services, with a commitment that a
report be delivered in March.
TDs will meet again today to discuss its final
recommendations for the future funding of domestic water
services.
There are still many questions to be answered so weve
taken a look at what is likely to happen.
Will there be future charges for households?
Its unlikely there will be water charges for all. With
Coveneys late intervention last night, a compromise might
have to be reached to avoid the government being brought
down.
While the idea of people paying for excessive water usage
was previously floated, critically yesterday, Fianna Fil
indicated they are opposing any charges.
Coveney believes this is a complete U-turn by the party. As it
stands, Fine Gaels position is that there should be
consequences for those who use excessive amounts of water,
namely a charge of some kind.
This would tick a box for the European Commission,
ensuring the State would not be in breach of any EU law.
That would, in turn, mean Ireland avoids any fines from
Europe.
Last year, the European Commission said Ireland will be in
breach of European law should it remove water charges
completely. (Once introduced, the EC says water charges
cannot be discontinued.)
Yesterday, the AAA-PBP was optimistic but cautious about
the committees final report, noting there were concerns
about Fianna Fil backtracking on its position.
Barry said the partys policy has not always been consistent
and he was wary of possibly deals being struck with Fine
Gael.
FactCheck: Has Fianna Fils position
on water charges really been consistent?
On the offensive following Coveneys late night remarks,
Paul Murphy issued a statement saying the Minister has
declared he will not introduce legislation to scrap water
charges even if the majority of the Dil votes in favour of it.
View image on Twitter
Follow
Paul Murphy

Scrap water charges or an election. Your choice .

10:37 PM - 28 Feb 2017
8 8 8 Retweets23 23 likes
Source: Paul Murphy/Twitter
Is it the end of the water meters programme?

This report could certainly mean the end to household water
meters as there is a clear majority on the committee in
favour of halting the domestic installation programme.
ODea indicated his party favoured a district metering
system, rather than household meters something Murphy
agreed with.
He claims it would cost a further half a billion euro to

complete the current water meter installation programme.
To date, they have cost 500 million.
The AAA-PBP TD said the committee heard overwhelming
evidence from water service providers in other jurisdictions,
such as Scotland, that district metering was a better
option over household water meters.
Water meters are not the new e-voting
machines they cost us a lot more>
So, does this mean refunds for those that have
already paid?
This has been the big question since the suspension of water
charges and the cessation of Irish Water bills. Should
those who paid be refunded or those who boycotted be
chased for payments?
As of last night, its understood the majority of the
committee is in favour of refunds but the method of doing so
has not been decided.
Follow
Paul Murphy

Clear majority in water committee against any charges and

for refunds. If this holds, it will be a victory for anti-water
charges movement.
1:40 PM - 28 Feb 2017
71 71 Retweets123 123 likes
Murphy believes the 162 million collected by Irish Water

should be refunded.
This figure does not include what it would cost to administer
the refunds, though some are speculating the easiest and
most straight-forward way of giving people their money
back is through a tax rebate.
Coveney told the media last night that Fine Gael is willing to
compromise on some issues, such as refunds, but not on the
issue of charging for excessive use of water - an indication
that refunds could be on the way.
What about the 100 water conservation grant?
Fianna Fil has insisted that people who received the water
conservation grant should have that deducted from their
refunds.
However, speaking to the media yesterday, Murphy said it
was time to draw a line under the water conservation grant.
I dont think we should go after the conservation fund it is
what it is.
Its understood more than 800,000 customers applied for
the 100 payment.
Will Irish Water still exist?
Irish Water will be retained as a single national utility in
public ownership responsible for the delivery of water and
wastewater services.
This is the first line in the FF-FG agreement on water
services. So, it has always been the case that Irish Water will
continue to exist in one form or another.
What next?
Fine Gael has been left in an isolated position. The party
believes the recommendations from the expert commission
should be followed.
Coveney dug in his heels last night while admitting that this
is a difficult political issue to resolve.
However, looking back again at the confidence and supply
agreement, it states that Fine Gael and Fianna Fil reserve
their right to adopt differing positions on any consequent
legislation or resolutions being debated by the Oireachtas.
This could spell trouble ahead if they cant reach a
compromise.
The agreement merely states that the government will
facilitate the passage of legislation for the implementation
of the recommendations in relation to domestic water
charging (whether it be abolition, a reformed charging
regime or other options).
This line was put to the minister yesterday evening and he
was asked what would happen if the Oireachtas approved
and voted in favour of the abolition of the water charges
regime.
Facilitating is not the same as introducing, he clarified.
What I am saying is I cannot introduce legislation that I
regard as effectively illegal.
View image on Twitter
Follow
Paul Murphy

If Coveney follows through on his threat not to pass anti-

water charges legislation, he's in breach of confidence&
supply agreement.
8:58 PM - 28 Feb 2017
U 14 14 Retweets24 24 likes
He said he wanted a fair outcome for all but one that is

legally sound. Sources within the Fianna Fil party have
indicated that this move by Coveney could be a breach of the
agreement.
When asked last night if Fine Gael was gearing up for a
possible early summer election, Coveney said he didnt think
that was the case.
I hope not.
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION has expanded on its view
that Ireland would be in breach of European law if we were
to step back from the current system of water charges.
In response to a detailed query from TheJournal.ie, a
spokesperson for the commission confirmed in a statement:
The Directive does not allow Member States that have
introduced water charges to apply article 9(4) and revert to
any previous practice not entailing the recovery of costs and
the application of the polluter pays principle.
This confirms explicitly, and for the first time in a public
statement, that the ECs view is that an exemption from
water charges once available to Ireland, ended with the
introduction of water charges.
However, Sinn Fin MEP Lynn Boylan has said the
commission can only make a definitive ruling on water
charges after the government has submitted its forthcoming
proposals.
In a statement on Friday afternoon, she said any other views
expressed by EC officials were purely speculative and of no
legal standing.
A dispute earlier this week had revolved around the question
of whether water charges were the established practice for
paying for water in Ireland.
In response to a European parliamentary question from
Boylan, the commission this week stated:
If the established practice is to have a system in place
implementing the recovery of the costs of water services, in
accordance with the polluter pays principle, the Commission
considers that the flexibility afforded to Member States as
outlined in Article 9 paragraph 4 would not apply.
What thats referring to is Article 9.4 of the Water
Framework Directive (WFD), which was agreed upon in
2000.
The directive gave all member states until 2010 to put in
place a system of paying for water which incentivises
preservation, and discourages pollution.
Source: European Commission

However, Article 9.4 included a loophole known as the Irish
exemption, which allowed countries to opt out of that
requirement, on two conditions:
Z If their established practices for water did not involve
water charges
Z If the system they implement doesnt violate the
environmental and water preservation aims of the directive.
The commissions reply earlier this week was first reported
by RT, and set off a dispute among Irish politicians, with
Boylan and Fianna Fil TD Barry Cowen claiming that water
charges were not the established practice in Ireland.
Cowen, in particular, highlighted a 2010 commission
response to a question from then MEP Alan Kelly, which
appeared to suggest that the system considered the
established practice was the one in place when the WFD
was adopted, in 2003.
On RTEs Drivetime on Tuesday, Cowen effectively argued
that in 2003 Ireland paid for its water system through
general taxation, and therefore the subsequent
implementation of water charges in 2014 could not be
regarded as established practice.
However, we put this question to the European Commission,
and their response was clear: once a country has
introduced water charges, the WFD does not allow
them to revert to their previous system of paying
for water.
We asked the commission whether they regarded the de
facto introduction of water charges in Ireland to have
happened in 2010, when the Fianna Fil-led government
submitted to the EC their plan to bring in water charges, or
in 2014, when the Fine Gael/Labour coalition government
implemented legislation to that effect.
In a statement, the spokesperson told us:
The Irish authorities recognised as far back as 2010 that
reforms to the water sector were needed in order to improve
the management of the resource and strengthen poor
infrastructure. Ireland subsequently introduced water
charges.
Source: PA WIRE
The government plans to suspend water charges for nine
months and establish a commission to explore alternatives
to the current arrangement involving Irish Water.
However, the ECs now explicit public stance on the
expiration of our exemption could put additional pressure
on that commission to produce a proposal that fully
conforms with European law.
The expert commission is expected to forward its final
recommendation to a special Oireachtas committee in 2017,
after which the Dil and Seanad will vote on it.
In a statement, a spokesperson for Minister Simon Coveney
told TheJournal.ie:
The advice of the Attorney General has been sought in
relation to the Water Framework Directive and water
charges and this issue is under examination by that Office.
As would be normal with the drafting of legislation, the
Office of the Attorney General will provide advice on the
proposed legislation
If the EC deems that the temporary suspension of charges,
or the new system emerging from the expert commission are
in breach of the WFD, it could begin a lengthy, multi-stage
legal process, potentially including hefty fines, against the
Irish state.
It would then be up to the government of the day to decide
whether or not to challenge the EC, a process that could
ultimately see the question of water charges resolved in the
European Court of Justice.
The European Commission has declared that Ireland
does not enjoy an exemption from the obligation
under EU law for a system of water charges.
The confirmation is likely to severely limit the
Government's discretion to scrap water charges.
Furthermore, according to informed sources, Ireland
could face a procedure in the coming months that
could lead to daily fines due to the Government's
breach of EU law.
The commission has said that the earlier "flexibility"
on water charges afforded to Ireland no longer
applies.
The confirmation comes in the form of a written
response to Sinn Fin MEP Lynn Boylan following a
parliamentary question.
The statement clarifies that Ireland must abide by a
number of principles in order to be compliant with a
key EU directive on water.
The principles effectively require member states to
ensure that the "polluter pays", and that there is a
system in place to allow for the "recovery of costs" for
the provision of water services.
The commission's written response makes it clear
that Ireland's de facto exemption from water charges
no longer applies because the Government
introduced water charges and metering in 2010.
Specifically, Brussels regards the introduction of

water charges as Ireland's "established practice" in
ensuring that the princples of "polluter pays", and
"cost recovery" are adhered to.
These are regarded as the key principles of the Water
Framework Directive, introduced in 2000, which was
designed to improve water quality across the EU.
In its response to Ms Boylan's parliamentary
question, the commission states: "If the established
practice is to have a system in place implementing
the recovery of the costs of water services, in
accordance with the polluter pays principle, the
Commission considers that the flexibility afforded to
Member States would not apply."
When the directive was introduced Ireland was the
only country in the European Union that did not apply
water charges.
Article 9 (4) of the directive gave Ireland a de facto
exemption from the directive, but only if the
Government could show that the principles and
objectives of the directive would be ultimately
complied with.
Although Ireland was not spelled out in Article 9 (4) of
the Directive, the clause was widely referred to as the
"Irish clause".
In 2010 the Fianna Fil/Green Party coalition
introduced the concept of water charges and
metering.
It is understood that the European Commission firmly
believes the introduction, by the former coalition, of
water charges meant that Ireland's "established
practice" had changed, and that from that moment
on, Ireland's derogation no longer applied.
Today's written response appears to confirm that
belief.
Under EU law the European Commission will take
action against a member state if it is in breach of a
directive.
Ireland could, therefore, face what is called a "pilot
notification" in the coming months, in which the
Government would be given ten weeks to explain
how it is complying with the Water Framework
Directive.
If the commission is not satisfied that Ireland is in
compliance, then it can issue a letter of formal notice,
a more serious step in the disciplinary process.
Beyond that, if the commission believes Ireland
remains in non-compliance, it could take Ireland to
the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
If Ireland is found in breach of the Water Framework
Directive the court could impose daily fines.
In December 2012 the ECJ fined Ireland 12,000 per
day for failure to comply with another environmental
directive, this time on waste water.
In the event, Ireland paid a total of 3.5m in fines for
failing to comply with a 2009 ruling that it had failed to
fulfill its obligations on how waste water in septic
tanks was disposed of.
Confirmation that Ireland is no longer exempt from
water charges will almost certainly have a bearing on
the proposed Expert Commission, agreed between
Fianna Fil and Fine Gael and enshrined in the
Programme for Government, which is due to examine
how to fund domestic water services.
The draft terms of reference of the Expert
Commission indicate that it will "take into account
Ireland's domestic and international environmental
standards and obligations."
Following talks with Fianna Fil, the Government
planned to set up an independent commission to look
at the issue of water charges, and refer it to a Dil
committee before it is voted on in the chamber.
Anti-Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy has said
Ireland should not accept the declaration of the
commission.
He said that idea was nonsensical and the
democratic decision of the electorate and, what he
called, "mass non payment" trumped that decision.
He said the Government should fight the issue in the
European Court of Justice and that the Government
would have a strong case in doing so.
Meanwhile, the Minister for Social Protection Leo
Varadkar has said that everyone in the Dil will have
to take into account what the European Commission
has said in relation to water charges.
He added that Minister Coveney and the Government
will have to consider the implications of that and the
Dil will have to consider the implications of that after
the suspension of water charges is over in nine
months time
Alan Kelly (S&D) to the Commission
12 May 2010
Subject: Water Framework Directive and water charges
Answer(s)
The Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC(1), Article 9.4, indicates
that a Member State will not be in breach of the directive for non-
implementation of the provision of 9.1, second sentence, on water-
pricing policies where this does not compromise the purposes and
the achievement of this directive. Can the Commission provide
some further clarification on the meaning of this point? Can the
Commission confirm whether Article 9.4 effectively means that
water-pricing policies could be avoided if the principles of the
directive can be achieved through other resources and the principle
of the polluter pays is adhered to?
Article 9.1 outlines that in relation to the recovery of the costs of

water services, Member States may have regard to the social,
environmental and economic effects of the recovery. In the
Commission's opinion, does the application of a flat rate charge for
water services sufficiently take into account the social and economic
effects of the recovery on households with varying income levels?
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?
type=WQ&reference=E-2010-3366&language=EN
Parliamentary questions
21 June 2010
E-3366/2010
Answer given by Mr Potonik on behalf of the Commission
Article 9(1) of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC(1),
requires Member States to ensure, by 2010, that a water pricing
policy is established based on the principles of cost recovery and
polluter pays. The water pricing policy shall also provide adequate
incentives for users to use water resources efficiently and therefore
contribute to achieving the objectives of the directive. The purpose
of the Water Framework Directive specified in Article 1 includes the
promotion of the sustainable water use based on the long-term
protection of available water resources. The environmental
objectives are set out in Article 4 and include the prevention of
deterioration of water bodies and the achievement of good status by
2015. The provision in Article 9(4) relating to the need to ensure
that the purposes and the achievement of the objectives of the
directive is not compromised relates to those objectives in Articles 1
and 4.
Article 9(4) provides the possibility for Member States not to apply
the provisions of Article 9(1) to a given water-use activity, where
this is an established practice at the time of adoption of the
directive and where this does not compromise the purposes and the
achievement of the objectives of the directive. The use of Article
9(4) is therefore subject to strict conditions.
The economic and social effects of a particular form of water pricing
on households will depend on the type of water pricing and the
socioeconomic profile of the households. It is for the Member States
to decide whether they have regard to these aspects on the basis of
an assessment of the effects of the water pricing policy on water
users. However, as regards Article 9(1), Member States who wished
to implement a flat rate would need to justify that it fulfils the
requirements in Article 9(1), in particular with respect to whether it
provides an adequate incentive for users to use water efficiently.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-
2010-3366&language=EN
maybe you should show this to to minister Covney ..."not in breach "
being the operative word.
Coveney: No water charges

would be illegal under EU law
March 1, 2017
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government,

Simon Coveney has said he will not agree with any
recommendations that would see charges for wasteful water
usage being scrapped.
Mr Coveneys comments come after the Oireachtas Committee
on water charges recently revealed that its findings into the
charges should see them abolished for good and every
household refunded as a result.
However Mr Coveney has slammed the decision saying that

any regime with no charges would be illegal under EU law, and
there is no way he or the Government can implement it.
Mr Coveney said: Were happy to compromise within reason,
but if that compromise involves us essentially doing
something that exposes the State to legal action, then I dont
think, as an office holder, I can facilitate that.
Irish water DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 October 2000
Amended by- establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:02000L0060-20140101&from=EN
EC water charges
pronouncements
purely speculative
Lynn Boylan MEP
3 June, 2016 - by Lynn Boylan MEP
Sinn Fin MEP for Dublin Lynn Boylan has stated that the
European Commission can only make a conclusive response on
ending water charges once the government has submitted a
proposal. The MEP has said that any other assessments of the
situation are purely speculative.
Speaking today Sinn Fin MEP for Dublin, Lynn Boylan said:
Over the last number of days there have been sources within
the European Commission who were quoted as saying that the
ending of water charging will result in fines.
It is clear from replies received to myself and other MEPs, that
the Commission will only be able to make a conclusive
response once the government has made a proposal. Any
briefings or other assessments pending a ruling by the
Commission are purely speculative and of no legal standing.
It is no surprise that elements within the Commission support
the continuation of water charges and support the privatisation
of water. However the Commission needs to recognise that a
majority of TDs in the 32nd Dil were elected on a platform to
abolish water charges. The European Commission must respect
the democratic will of the people.
It is up to the Irish Government to implement the will of the
people and end water charging. We need the government and
all the Irish representatives in the EU to act together to ensure
the ending of these charges.
It is job of the Commission to respect the democratic will of
the people to end water charges. This can be facilitated within
the terms of the existing legislation.
http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/40194
Fianna-Fail -Manifesto abolish the governments botched Water
Conservation grant to save the state 110m. page 38
https://www.fiannafail.ie/download/An-Ireland-for-all-Fianna-
FaCC81il-Manifesto.pdf
abolish the governments botched Water
Conservation grant to save the state 110m.
(iii) Push down energy costs
Irelands current energy policy is driving up
consumer prices, making our economy
uncompetitive and failing to tap into the
opportunities presented by community
energy projects. It is time for policy makers
to develop a national energy policy which is
low in cost, is respectful of local communities
and their ability to contribute to our
renewable energy future and which secures
our energy supply from external energy
shocks. We will:
- Achieve a balanced energy mix to meet our
EU Climate Change targets.
- Diversify our renewable energy mix and
explore Bio-Mass and solar as additional
sources of
renewable energy.
- Reform the Commission for Energy
regulation to help drive down prices for
business and
families.
- Commission a full economic review of wind
energy, its impact on energy prices and its
long
term sustainability in supplying the Irish
national grid.
- Ensure that extensions to the national Grid
and interconnectors are underground where
possible and respect areas of natural beauty.
- Place climate and energy policy together in
one Department in order to ensure a joined
up,
co-ordinated approach to meeting our
Climate Change energy emissions targets.
(iv) Reduce DIRT by 3%
Savers have got a very raw deal under this
government. The tax on the interest earned
by savers has been increased by a massive
14%. In addition, anyone with unearned
income of greater than 5,000 has to pay an
extra 4% PRSI on deposit interest, bringing
the total tax on interest earned to 45%. This
is a punitive tax on people who have
prudently saved money. Fianna Fil
is committed to reforming and reducing the
tax on savings and making it more attractive
for people to put money aside.
- We will reduce the rate of DIRT from 41% to
38%. this will cost 22m annually.
(v) Cap local property tax charges
Fianna Fil successfully campaigned to
prevent a huge rise in local property tax bills
in 2017. We are committed to ensuring that
homeowners are not hit with large increases
after the next valuation date. We will:
- Legislate to ensure fair treatment of all
householders and prevent councils from
implementing increases in the overall
property tax take in their local area.
- Examine ways in which the operation of the
tax can be made fairer including o ering a
reduction to apartment owners and others in
managed estates who pay for local services
such as lighting, maintenance, grass cutting,
road repairs etc through their management
fees.
BROADENING THE TAX BASE
In the Renewed Programme for Government we have accepted the
recommendations of the Commission on Taxation on the need for
a property tax. Considerable ground work will need to be done
before a Site Valuation Tax can be introduced. Work will shortly
begin on the registration of ownership and the valuation of land.
The Renewed Programme also contains a commitment to
introduce a system of water metering for homes. Preparations are
underway. Water charges, when introduced, will be based on
consumption above a free allocation. Further details will be
announced by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local
Government.
These charges, like the charge on second homes, will finance the
provision of local services by local authorities.
High Earners Must Pay Their Fair Share
We have set our face against increasing the burden of income tax.
But the Government wants high earners availing of tax incentive
schemes to contribute more in the current difficult circumstances.
Accordingly, for the tax year 2010, the effective rate of income tax
for those benefiting from reliefs will increase from 20 per cent to 30
per cent on top of which they will also pay PRSI and levies. This
represents a significant tightening of the restriction which will yield
approximately 55 million in a full year. The entry point to the
restriction will now occur at adjusted income levels of 125,000
with the full restriction applying at 400,000. I will examine the
curtailment and removal of further reliefs in the context of the
Finance Bill.
Our tax treatment of non-resident individuals is broadly in line with
that of most other OECD countries. But, we must ensure that every
wealthy Irish domiciliary who pays little or no income tax makes a
contribution to the State, especially during times of economic and
fiscal difficulty.
For this reason we will introduce measures which will impose on all
Irish nationals and domiciled individuals, whose worldwide income
exceeds 1 million and whose Irish-located capital is greater than
5 million, a requirement to pay an Irish domicile levy of 200,000
per annum regardless of where they are tax resident. The full
details will be set out in the Finance Bill.
I will also be introducing a package of measures to improve the
effectiveness of the Revenue Commissioners in tackling the
shadow economy, addressing smuggling and excise frauds, and
dealing with tax avoidance schemes.
Carbon Tax
The economic and social implications of climate change are
immense and it is the responsibility of Governments everywhere to
change behaviour to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
The most effective way is to put a price on carbon. This will
encourage innovation by incentivising companies to bring low
carbon products and services to the market.
Changing behaviour takes time but a start has to be made. Today I
am introducing a carbon tax equivalent to 15 per tonne. The detail
is set out in the Summary of Budget Measures. The tax will apply
to petrol and diesel from tonight. Increases to home heating oils
and gas will apply from next May.
The application of the tax to coal and commercial peat will be
subject to a commencement order to allow a robust mechanism to
be put in place to counter the sourcing of coal and peat from
Northern Ireland where lower environmental standards apply. A
vouched fuel allowance scheme will be developed to offset the
increases for low income families dependant on such fuels.
The yield from the Carbon Tax will be used to boost energy
efficiency, to support rural transport and to alleviate fuel poverty.
The Carbon Tax will also allow us to maintain or reduce payroll
taxes.
Carbon taxes will be a feature of economies across the world in the
coming years. Todays announcement sends a positive signal to
those gathered in Copenhagen, working for an ambitious
agreement on global climate change, about Irelands capacity to
show leadership.
The tax changes I am introducing today reflect my belief that tax
can make some contribution to the reduction of the deficit, and will
make a larger contribution in later years. But as we know from our
recent history, we cannot rely solely on taxing our way out of our
difficulties.
STABILISING THE DEFICIT IN A FAIR WAY

So if we cannot tax our way out of our difficulties and we all agree
in this House that we cannot borrow our way to recovery then the
only remaining option is to reduce our spending.
No one wants to cut spending but the cost of providing public
services has to be reduced to bring it in line with sustainable
revenue levels and to help restore our international
competitiveness.
Since 1997 we have made great strides in expanding the level of
public service provision. We did so out of the best of motives and
in response to public demand. Indeed many in this House criticised
us for not doing more.
But the current cost of providing public services is not sustainable.
Without any correction, day to day spending would be about 58
billion in 2010, an increase of about 2 billion over 2009.
Given that Public Service Pay and Social Welfare each account for
about one third of all day to day spending, reductions in these two
areas are unavoidable.
The measures I am announcing today amount to savings of over
1 billion on the pay bill, about 760 million on Social Welfare,
about 980 million on day to day spending programmes and about
960 million in savings on investment projects. Combined with
other adjustments, this amounts to over 4 billion expenditure
savings compared with the pre-Budget estimates.
ADJUSTMENTS TO PUBLIC SERVICE PAY AND PENSIONS

In my Supplementary Budget, I announced my decision to have top
level pay rates examined by the Review Body on Higher
Remuneration in the Public Sector and benchmarked against those
of other EU countries of comparable scale.
The Government has considered the recommendations of the
Review Body and intends to apply reductions to all public servants
in the higher pay bands including hospital consultants.
Based on the Review Bodys recommendations I propose to apply
a reduction in pay of :
U 8 per cent for those with salaries from 125,000 to 165,000;
U 12 per cent for those earning between 165,000 to 200,000; and
U 15 per cent for those earning 200,000 or more.
These are permanent reductions which will be reflected in future
pension entitlements.
The salary of the Taoiseach will be reduced by 20 per cent. This
reduction, together with the pension levy means the Taoiseachs
salary will be cut by close to 30 per cent in total.
Ministers and Secretaries General of Government Departments will
take a pay cut of 15 per cent: an overall cut of close to 25 per cent
when the pension levy is taken into account.
The Review Body concluded that the Constitution precluded them
from recommending a reduction in judicial pay. Had they not been
so precluded, they would have considered a downward adjustment.
For the same reason the pension levy was not applied to the
judiciary, though many judges have contributed an amount on a
voluntary basis. I can inform the House that the Chief Justice and
the Presidents of the Courts have urged all Judges to make the
appropriate pension contribution. I will make provision in the
Finance Bill to facilitate these payments.
Since the Review Body would have considered a reduction of
judicial salaries, I have decided that there will be no increase in
judges pay during the lifetime of this Government. Future
Governments may choose, as in the past, to continue this course
of action.
Those at the top will lead by example in this national downward
readjustment of pay. Legislation to give effect to these substantial
reductions in senior level pay will be published shortly. I want to
thank the Review Body for their work. Their report will be published
later this week.
It must be acknowledged that public servants have already made a
substantial contribution to the necessary reduction in public
expenditure.
The pension levy has reduced their pay by an average of nearly 7
per cent.
Their numbers have been reduced by the moratorium and the
incentivised early retirement scheme and career breaks.
Like many workers they have forgone pay increases.
Unfortunately, more is required. The country can no longer afford a
pay and pensions bill that accounts for more than a third of all
current spending. Any reduction in the pay bill must be sustainable,
must be applied in a progressive manner and must address the
position beyond 2010.
As the House knows, there were lengthy negotiations with the
public service unions in recent weeks. The Government wanted to
achieve the necessary reductions by agreement and the unions
earnestly sought to conclude a deal. I want to thank public service
unions for accepting the need to reduce the public service pay bill
and their constructive and strenuous efforts to reach an agreement
on how this would be done. Regrettably, a deal was not possible.
The reductions we must now make do not reflect any lack of
recognition of public servants or of the quality of the work they do
for all of us. They are simply a matter of budgetary necessity in
these extraordinarily difficult times.
Accordingly, the pay of public servants will be reduced with effect
from 1 January 2010 as follows:
9 a reduction of 5 per cent on the first 30,000 of salary;
10 a reduction of 7 per cent on the next 40,000 of salary; and
11 a reduction of 10 per cent on the next 55,000 of salary.
The reductions range from 5 per cent to 8 per cent in the case of
salaries of public servants of up to 125,000. The pay of members
of the Oireachtas will be reduced in line with that of the equivalent
public service grades. Provision for these reductions will be
included in the legislation which I will publish shortly.
In order to avoid a destabilising rate of retirement among older
public servants, the pension entitlements of those retiring in 2010
will not be affected.
I accept the Commission on Taxations recommendation that
pension lump sums below 200,000 should not be taxed. The
treatment of sums above this level, and the tax treatment of
pensions, including the consolidated 33 per cent rate of relief will
be considered in the Governments National Pensions Framework
shortly to be published by the Minister for Social and Family
Affairs.
Public Service Pension Reform
Exchequer spending on public service pensions will be over 2
billion in 2010.
As life expectancy improves and the population ages, this cost is
set to rise. The States pensions bill will grow from about 5 per cent
to 13 per cent of GDP by 2050, with two thirds of the increase in
spending going on social welfare pensions and the remainder on
public service pensions.
Cost increases on this scale cannot be ignored by a responsible
Government determined to secure our economic future.
The Government has decided to introduce a new single pension
scheme for all new entrants to the public service. The legislation
will be introduced in 2010 and the scheme will be in place by the
end of the year.
The new scheme will bring public service pension terms more in
line with private sector norms. Among other things, it will change
the calculation of benefits so that pensions are based on career
average earnings rather than final salary on retirement as at
present. This will be more equitable than the present system which
favours those with higher earnings later in their careers. The
minimum pension age for new public servants will also be
increased from 65 to 66 and then linked to increases in the state
pension age.
More details of the main elements of the new scheme are given in
the Summary of Budget Measures.
The link to earnings or pay parity basis for post-retirement
pension increases is a feature of Irish public service schemes.
The recent special report by the Comptroller and Auditor General
estimated that the present actuarial cost of public service pensions
is 108 billion. A change to a CPI basis for post-retirement
increases would reduce that cost to 87 billion, a reduction of 20
per cent. On average, pay increases have been significantly
greater than increases in the CPI.
As part of the reform of public service pension arrangements, I will
review the current arrangements and consider linking pensions to
increases in the cost of living. Pending that review, I do not intend
to apply the pay cuts I have already outlined to existing public
service pensioners.
These are significant changes. The Government is determined to
meet the immediate fiscal problems Ireland faces and, at the same
time, to make far-reaching reforms for the future.
ADJUSTMENTS IN SOCIAL WELFARE

The Government is proud of its unrivalled record in increasing the
level of social welfare payments. Over the last twelve years, we
have increased pension rates by about 120 per cent,
unemployment benefits by almost 130 per cent and Child Benefit
payments by over 330 per cent. The cost of living has increased by
about 40 per cent over the same period. We extended coverage,
removed barriers, and increased entitlements such that the level
and extent of social support payments has been transformed
beyond recognition.
We are determined, where possible, to maintain that progress in
inflation-adjusted terms. But we can either safeguard the generous
system we have by making these savings now, or we can put it all
at risk by extending it beyond what resources will allow.
We did not reduce welfare rates in Aprils Supplementary Budget.
But I did signal that rates of payment might be reduced if the cost
of living fell. As the House will know the overall cost of living has
fallen by about 6 per cent over the past twelve months, including
very sharp declines in the prices of the basic necessities of food,
clothing and accommodation.
In the case of working age rates of payment there will be a
reduction of about 4.1 per cent.
Unemployment among the young is a particular concern to the
Government. We want to encourage them to stay close to the
labour market while at the same time providing a rate of assistance
that compares very well internationally, particularly with payments
in Britain and Northern Ireland. We know from the bitter experience
of the 1980s how a welfare system out of step with labour costs in
the rest of the economy can trap people in protracted joblessness.
That is why we are making the following targeted changes:
for new applicants, the rate of Job-seekers Allowance and
Supplementary Welfare Allowance for persons aged 20 and 21
years of age who have no dependent children is being reduced to
100 per week and for those aged between 22 and 24 to 150 per
week; and
for all other cases, the rate will be reduced to 150 per week where
job offers or activation measures have been refused.
In making adjustments to Social Welfare rates, we recognised that
consumer prices have not declined at the same rate for all groups.
Older people have experienced by far the smallest reduction in
living costs. For that reason and in recognition of the contribution
they have made to the State the Government has decided to leave
the State pension unchanged.
Child Benefit
In the Supplementary Budget, I raised the issue of the unfairness
of paying the same level of benefit irrespective of the level of
income of the recipient. Not only is this unfair but it is also
unaffordable in current circumstances. Child Benefit this year will
cost 2.5 billion or 12 per cent of Social Welfare spending.
I had hoped to be able to introduce greater equity by making Child
Benefit taxable or means tested but there are legal and logistical
reasons why I cannot do so at this stage. For that reason, the
Government has decided to make the changes on the spending
side.
Accordingly, the lower and higher rate of Child Benefit will be
reduced by 16 per month, bringing these rates to 150 and 187
per month respectively. Welfare dependent families will be fully
compensated by increasing the Qualified Child Allowance by 3.80
per week so that they will not be affected by this measure. Low
income families in receipt of Family Income Supplement (FIS) will
also be fully compensated.
The Summary of Budget Measures gives further details of these
and a number of other more limited changes on Social Welfare
entitlements.
Social Welfare spending rose in 2009 to 20.4 billion. The
measures announced today will reduce Social Welfare spending by
760 million in 2010. Despite this reduction social welfare
spending will reach 21.1 billion next year due to the sharp rise in
unemployment during 2009.
Of the major adjustments I am announcing today across all areas
of spending, welfare is making the smallest contribution.
As a result of these deductions, rates of payment will revert to
2006 levels in the case of Child Benefit and just below 2008 levels
in the case of working age rates for those aged 25 and over.
It is the Governments firm intention to maintain the comparatively
generous level of social provision we have in this country. But we
are in very difficult circumstances and everyone must make a
contribution. Government is about taking decisions, taking
responsibility, and making choices that not all will welcome. Cutting
public spending in the abstract is easy; deciding where cuts will fall
in reality is an entirely different matter. Those opposite have the
luxury of the former. We have the duty of the latter.
ADJUSTMENTS IN DAY TO DAY SPENDING
Over the last year we have been running to stand still in terms of
spending on public services. Reductions have been offset by
increases mainly due to increased unemployment and higher debt
servicing costs.
In this Budget the Government has decided to reduce spending on
public services by almost 1 billion in 2010 compared with the pre-
Budget estimates. We have sought to make savings through
efficiencies rather than through reductions in services. 400 million
of these savings arise in the health area where various measures,
including a prescription charge of fifty cent per item under the
medical card scheme, are being introduced to reduce the States
medicines bill. Details will be provided by the Minister for Health
and Children.
The remaining savings in day to day spending will be achieved
across other Departments, details of which are set out in the
Summary of Budget Measures.
REVIEW OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

In framing this Budget I have been guided by the McCarthy
Groups report.
This Group did not examine spending in the Local Authorities
which provide critical services to communities and businesses at
local level.
Local authorities are a key driver of cost for business.
The Government has decided to undertake an Efficiency Review of
Local Authorities. This work will begin immediately and report by
mid 2010. The full details of this review will be announced by the
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
INVESTMENT FOR RECOVERY AND EMPLOYMENT

Although public investment spending is being reduced next year, it
will still be 6.4 billion or 5 per cent of GNP for 2010 and 5.5
billion each year for the years 2011 to 2016.
Tender prices for many new projects have also fallen back
significantly thus enabling us to get better value for money.
In 2010, our investment projects will focus on labour-intensive
areas such as schools building and maintenance, energy efficiency
measures and investment in our tourism infrastructure.
Other key investment priorities in 2010 will include science,
technology and innovation; promotion of environmental
sustainability; implementation of green enterprise initiatives;
housing and urban regeneration; the health sector; public transport
and finishing the inter-urban motorways.
I want to draw particular attention to an initiative in the health
sector. I am providing for a multi-annual investment programme in
important mental health projects which are in line with the strategy
set out in A Vision for Change. This investment programme will
be funded from the sale of surplus HSE assets and I am allocating
an additional amount of 43 million for this purpose in 2010.
Further funding for mental health will be provided as asset sales
allow.
National Solidarity Bond
I have received a number of proposals to establish a medium-term
national savings product as an additional source of funding for
capital investment. A product of this kind would enable ordinary
citizens to provide money to the State to stimulate economic
recovery and create employment.
I am announcing today the Governments intention to introduce a
National Solidarity Bond aimed at small investors.
The National Treasury Management Agency and my Department
are working on the details of the Bond and I expect it will be open
for investment early in the new year.
SAFEGUARDING THOSE WORST HIT BY THE RECESSION

Some have suffered more than others in this economic downturn:
U those who have lost their jobs or whose jobs are at risk;
U those who have concerns about meeting their mortgage
repayments; and
U those affected by the recent flooding.
Helping People Back to Work and Protecting Jobs
Protecting jobs and providing opportunities for those who are
unemployed to return to work and avail of education is a priority for
Government.
I am providing nearly 136 million in funding to provide an
additional 26,000 individuals with training places and supports:
56 million is being made available to Fs for short term courses;
20 million will go to an Activation Fund which will involve an open
call for innovative proposals that have the capacity to provide work,
education and training;
14 million is being made available, in addition to 26 million from
the EU, for supports to redundant workers in eligible companies
under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund;
9 million is being made available as support measures for the
food industry to enhance the competitiveness of this key
indigenous industry; and
36 million will be allocated to an Employers Job Incentive Scheme
giving PRSI exemption to encourage employers to take employees
off the dole. Further details will be announced by the Minister for
Social and Family Affairs.
This will bring the total places available for the unemployed to over
180,000.
We are already providing substantial supports to employers
through the Stabilisation Fund and the Temporary Employment
Subsidy Scheme which will cost 165 million in 2010.
In line with the Government's commitment to enhance the
efficiency of the State's investment in Science and Technology it is
my intention to create a single stream of funding in this area. To
advance the Smart Economy, it is essential that the State secures
the maximum commercial return from its substantial investment in
research, science and innovation. Details of the new arrangements
will appear in the Revised Estimates volume to be published in the
early part of the new year.
Mortgages
All sides of this House share a concern for those who face
difficulties meeting their mortgage repayments.
It is important to remember that only twenty homes have been
repossessed by the institutions covered under the Government
Guarantee in the first three quarters of this year.
Mainstream mortgage lenders have adopted a responsible position
towards their customers. Most recently the Irish Banking
Federation issued a Statement of Intent which provides that
where a customer in difficulty adheres to a mutually acceptable
arrangement with their lender, the lender will not initiate any form of
legal action against them in relation to their mortgage.
The Renewed Programme includes a commitment to introduce
new measures to protect families having difficulty with their
mortgages. As a first step in this process I have asked the
Financial Regulator to examine the extension of the six month
moratorium on legal proceedings already in the Code of Conduct
on mortgage arrears to twelve months for all lenders.
Everyone has to play their part and I will require the banking
industry to engage with Government to find innovative solutions to
ease the burden for affected home owners.
In the Supplementary Budget I refocused mortgage interest relief
on those who bought their homes at the peak of the market. As a
support to homeowners who now find themselves in negative
equity I am providing that where entitlement to the relief would
expire in 2010 or after, they will now continue to receive it up to the
end of 2017.
To encourage those who want to buy a house over the next three
years I will provide that:
qualifying loans taken out before 1 July 2011 will continue to get
relief at current levels for seven years, and
transitional arrangements will apply to loans taken out in the
subsequent 18 months at a reduced level and duration.
It is my intention to abolish mortgage interest relief entirely by the
end of 2017. Full details will be set out in the Finance Bill.
The Government already provides help and support for families in
difficulty with their mortgages through the Mortgage Interest
Subsidy Scheme. A review of the operation of this Scheme will be
completed early in the new year.
Responding to the Flooding
The recent flooding has brought severe hardship on communities
in the affected parts of the country.
I am announcing today that in excess of 70 million will be
provided over the remainder of 2009 and into 2010 to help those
affected by recent flooding and fund work to minimise the risks of
future incidents. The review of investment priorities which will
shortly be published will also provide for continued substantial
investment in flood relief. The Government is keeping this situation
under review and will commit further resources as required.
STIMULATING THE ECONOMY TO HELP SUSTAIN AND

CREATE JOBS
Those in business understand the connection between fiscal
sustainability and business confidence. But they also understand
that delivering economic recovery is about more than cutting the
deficit. We must invest in every sector to create jobs and secure
sustainable growth.
Today I am announcing a number of stimulus measures to aid the
economic recovery in the short term and help ensure sustainable
growth for the future.
Supporting the Retail Sector: VAT and Excise Changes
Our retail sector has been battling a steep currency depreciation
on its doorstep. The main reason for the increase in cross border
shopping is the currency differential. This is outside of our control.
But it is within our power to reduce our consumption taxes which
are among the highest in the European Union.
Recent CSO data show that 44 per cent of cross border shoppers
buy alcohol. To protect exchequer revenue and stem the flow of
cross border shopping, I have decided to reduce excise duty on
alcohol products. The reductions will be as follows:
12 cent per pint of beer and cider;
14 cent per half glass of spirits; and
60 cent per standard bottle of wine.
All these reductions are VAT inclusive. I expect the drinks industry
to play its part in making the cost of alcohol more competitive. If I
find this reduction has not been passed on to the consumer I will
reverse todays reduction.
I have looked again at the standard rate of VAT and I have decided
to reverse the per cent increase imposed in October 2008. This
measure will take effect from 1 January 2010 and is estimated to
cost 140 million next year.
I have decided not to make any changes to excise on tobacco in
this Budget because I believe the high price is now giving rise to
massive cigarette smuggling. My responsibility as Minister for
Finance is to protect the tax base. I have full confidence in the
effectiveness of the current multi-agency approach but early in the
New Year I want to explore what further measures we may need to
stem the illegal flow of cigarettes into this country.
Improving the Energy Efficiency of our Cars
The Government wants to encourage the increased use of
environmentally friendly electric cars and the development of new
technology in this field. To that end, the VRT exemption for electric
vehicles and the VRT reliefs of up to 2,500 for plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles are being extended by two years until 31
December 2012. We will also provide support to offset the initial
battery costs for such cars. This will help in fulfilling our ambitious
goals to reduce transport related emissions.
I am also introducing a car scrappage scheme, to run from 1
January until 31 December 2010. VRT relief of up to 1,500 per
new car purchased will be made available under the scheme,
where a car of 10 years or older is scrapped under certain
conditions. The scheme will have the environmental benefit of
removing some older, potentially less safe and polluting vehicles
from the road. Details of the scheme are provided in the Summary
of Budget Measures.
Getting Credit Flowing
In light of the massive State commitment to the banking sector, I
am determined that there will be a return to the taxpayers of this
country in the form of credit which supports healthy Irish
businesses and jobs.
This is why I am establishing a credit review system. I will use my
powers under the NAMA legislation to issue guidelines to all banks
participating in NAMA who have an SME business, to ensure that
SMEs, sole traders and farm enterprises will have recourse to an
independent, external review of decisions of credit refusal by the
banks. I hope also that banks not participating in NAMA or covered
by the Government guarantee will also decide to participate. My
aim is to have a simple, effective appeals process, run by people
with experience and credibility. The banks must comply with the
recommendations of the appeal process, or explain satisfactorily
why they cannot do so.
In addition to dealing with individual cases, the credit review
system will examine the credit policies and practices of the banks
for all SME sectors. It will pay particular attention to sectors, such
as the retail sector including car dealerships, tourism, and
agriculture where particular stresses have been reported. This will
help me to decide what further action might be necessary to
secure the flow of credit. I intend to publish the analysis from the
review process so that the performance of the banks participating
in NAMA will be clear to all.
I have asked Mr John Trethowan, an experienced banker with a
demonstrated commitment to public and social service, to oversee
the establishment of this credit review system with initial
administrative support from Enterprise Ireland. I expect he will start
his work shortly.
Assisting Agriculture and Forestry
Agriculture is an important component of our economy and this
Government has not hesitated to offer this crucial sector support
where it was most needed. We responded rapidly to the pig dioxin
crisis last year, where we provided some 200 million to save that
industry and the jobs within it. We have made a large investment in
agricultural infrastructure through the Farm Waste Management
Scheme. We remain committed to supporting an environmentally
sustainable agriculture sector and are in discussions with the
European Commission with a view to introducing a new five year
agri-environmental scheme. I have agreed to provide 50 million
from within the existing allocation to support this scheme.
I am also providing more than 121 million for Forestry and Bio-
energy. This includes a capital provision of 116 million to plant a
further 7,000 hectares of trees next year. This demonstrates the
Governments continued commitment to this vital sector as set out
in the Renewed Programme.
Retaining a Pro-Enterprise Tax Policy
Our Corporation Tax rate of 12 per cent has become an
international brand, known the world over. It is a powerful
expression of our pro-enterprise ethos and continues to attract new
business and new jobs to this country. In a time of great
uncertainty for international business, it is important that we send
out a clear message. The 12 per cent Corporation Tax rate will
not change. It is here to stay.
Over the last two years I have significantly enhanced the incentives
for R&D and intellectual property. I look forward to receiving the
report of the Innovation Taskforce and I will explore its
recommendations in the context of the Finance Bill. In Budget
2009, I introduced a three year corporate and capital tax exemption
for start up companies in 2009. I propose to extend this scheme to
new start-ups in 2010.
Significant opportunities exist in the international financial services
sector for centralising high value added activity in Ireland as this
sector restructures itself around the world after the global financial
crisis. Particular opportunities also exist for Ireland to become the
European hub for the international funds industry following recent
European legislative changes. I will be bringing forward changes in
the Finance Bill which will strengthen Irelands competitive edge in
this important sector.
Boosting Energy Efficiency to Stimulate the Economy
Boosting energy efficiency is good for the environment and for the
economy. It is a growing area of innovation with huge commercial
and employment potential.
We are allocating about 130 million for energy efficiency
measures which will include a new multi-annual National Retrofit
Programme in 2010.
This will build on the success of existing schemes delivered
through Sustainable Energy Ireland and has the potential to create
up to 5,000 jobs next year alone.
50 million of the carbon tax yield will be used to fund measures
such as help for households at risk of fuel poverty to make their
homes warmer. The local authorities will receive additional funding
to retrofit the social housing stock. This represents a significant
boost to the plan to retrofit over one million homes by 2025.
In addition, the scheme of accelerated capital allowances for
energy efficient equipment is being enhanced to include
refrigeration and cooling systems, electro-mechanical systems and
catering and hospitality equipment. This measure will improve
energy efficiency while also helping companies under strong
competitive pressure in sectors such as food and drink, retailing
and distribution.
Supporting the Tourism Sector
The tourism sector is a critical, labour intensive indigenous sector.
The overall Tourism budget will be increased in 2010 to enable a
marketing drive with the objective of increasing tourism numbers
and revenue by 3 per cent. Investment in visitor attractions will be
increased threefold to 22 million.
As an imaginative initiative to increase tourism numbers next year,
Iarnrd ireann have agreed to participate in a new scheme, to be
developed by Filte Ireland, aimed at senior citizens visiting Ireland
from abroad. This group will be offered vouchers for greatly
discounted rail travel throughout Ireland. More information on this
initiative will be given by Filte Ireland and Iarnrd ireann in the
coming weeks when the details have been finalised.
CONCLUSION
A Cheann Comhairle, I want to recall the death earlier this year of
Senator Ted Kennedy. Senator Kennedy was unquestionably one
of the best friends Ireland ever had on Capitol Hill.
Today, in a modest way I would like to honour the memory of a
great man from a great family. The Government will provide
funding for a project at the Kennedy Homestead in Dunganstown,
County Wexford from which his forefathers emigrated in the early
nineteenth century. The development of this important visitor
attraction will be a welcome boost to tourism in the South East.
The inauguration of John F Kennedy as President of the United
States in nineteen sixty-one gave a powerful sense of hope,
possibility and self-belief to Irish people all over the world.
A recent survey commissioned by the Irish Times found that 84 per
cent of those surveyed think Ireland needs to start believing in
itself again.
Yes, we have endured a traumatic eighteen months. The speed
and ferocity of the recession has knocked us off our stride. But the
innate advantages that brought us the boom have survived the
downturn.
We have taken a step back but we have in place a plan to take us
forward on the path of sustainable economic growth. That plan is
working.
Unemployment will not be as high as previously forecast;
our tax receipts have begun to stabilise;
consumer confidence is beginning to revive; and
our export figures are the healthiest in Europe.
As we begin to emerge from the unrelenting economic gloom of
the last eighteen months, we need to rediscover our optimism and
our self-belief. Now more than ever, we need that confidence on
which business thrives. The measures contained in this Budget,
some of them unpalatable, will engender that confidence.
A Cheann Comhairle, we have taken the hard decisions, but we
have been fair.
We have preserved the real value of social welfare for those most
in need.
We have protected older citizens.
We have reduced the cost of public services.
We have taken action on credit to protect borrowers.
We have cut taxes to protect jobs in retail and tourism.
We have maintained significant investment spending to promote
future growth.
We have announced measures to save jobs, stimulate employment
and protect the environment.
Our plan is working.
We have turned the corner.
I commend this Budget to the House. STATEMENT OF COMMON
PURPOSE
On the 25th February a democratic revolution took place in Ireland
http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Work_Of_The
_Department/Programme_for_Government/Pr
ogramme_for_Government_2011-2016.pdf
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between Ireland and the Troika addressed the
issue of water
https://www.imf.org/external/np/loi/2010/irl/1
20310.pdf
reviews of Irelands implementation of the
terms and conditions of the bailout deal, the
commitments became increasingly detailed
and concrete. By March 2013, the Irish
government was promising the Troika-
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2013/
cr1393.pdf
Statement by Commission and ECB staff
following the conclusion of the sixth post-
programme surveillance mission to Ireland
and, if necessary, to recommend corrective actions.
Irelands economic prospects remain bright, but some clouds
are on the horizon. In recent years, rapid economic growth has
provided tailwinds for policy efforts aimed at financial sector repair
and the restoration of sustainable public finances. Most recently, on
top of robust underlying growth, the level of GDP surged in 2015
driven primarily by changes in the global operations of some
multinationals. This added further to the fall in the headline deficit
and debt-to-GDP ratios but had only limited benefits for the
domestic economy in terms of household income and employment.
While GDP is expected to continue to grow at robust rates, the
future evolution of the activities of multinational enterprises
remains uncertain and the external environment has become
increasingly unpredictable especially after the UK 'leave' vote.
Ireland's fiscal adjustment has been remarkable but slowed
in 2016. While broadly compliant, the Draft Budgetary Plan implies
a risk of some deviation from the required adjustment towards the
medium-term objective in both 2016 and 2017. The government
used a large part of the over-performing, but partly volatile, tax
proceeds to fund additional current spending in 2016. While the
corporation tax increase is recognised as a level shift, this is not
fully in line with the June 2016 EU Council recommendations, which
encourage Ireland to use windfall gains to accelerate deficit and
debt reduction. Looking forward, a continued decline in the still high
level of public debt remains sensitive to fluctuations in economic
growth and is dependent on the size of fiscal adjustment. In this
context the government announcement of a debt-to GDP target of
45% of GDP by the mid to late 2020s is to be welcomed. In this
context, compliance with the EU fiscal framework provided under
the Stability and Growth Pact remains of the essence.
Increased external uncertainty puts an even greater
premium on prudent fiscal policy and a reorientation of
public spending toward investment. Efforts to enhance the
budgetary process are commendable. Yet, the reliability of multi-
annual expenditure planning remains weak, leading to repeated
changes to expenditure ceilings. If correctly designed, changes to
the fiscal framework would reduce the risk of pro-cyclical fiscal
policy in the future. Ongoing spending pressures call for a
strengthening of public spending reviews, including in the
healthcare sector. The 2017 budget aims to exhaust the available
fiscal space and little has been done to broaden the tax base in this
budget, leaving the public finances vulnerable to shocks. Further
current spending increases and tax cuts could narrow the scope for
public investment in infrastructure, making it difficult to address
bottlenecks and boost the long-term productive capacity of the
economy.
Despite significant progress in recent years, there is ample
scope for further vigilance for the banking sector. A number of
factors will continue to drag on bank profitability in the near to
medium term. These include the elevated stock of non-performing
loans (NPLs) and low-yielding tracker mortgages, weak credit
demand, difficulties in accessing collateral, and a risk that net
interest margins begin to decline. Domestic banks' capital levels
have improved, even though the results of the recent European
Banking Authority stress test signalled remaining vulnerabilities,
mostly stemming from the legacy of their weak asset quality. The
resolution of NPLs needs to maintain momentum and efforts to
ensure that accounts are sustainably restructured should continue.
In particular, the focus should remain on mortgage loans that have
long been non-performing. Despite the recent pickup in new lending
volumes, both households and firms continue to repay more than
they borrow, resulting in a still largely credit-less economic
recovery. Market uncertainty persists, including in relation to the
longer-term impact of the UK leave vote on the banks, especially
those with significant UK exposures.
Banks will need to carefully balance the push to boost credit
volumes with maintaining prudent lending standards. The
opposition Bill enabling the Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) to cap
interest rates on variable rate mortgages, if enacted, could interfere
with the smooth transmission of monetary policy. By impinging on
the generation of sustainable profits by banks, it could also have
implications for banking supervision and financial stability.
Moreover, a decision to direct lenders as to the interest rate they
can charge could lead to a decrease in competition and have a
deterrent effect on potential new entrants to the market, thereby
inhibiting credit extension at sustainable market rates.
Developments in real estate markets need to be closely
monitored. While there is little evidence of house price
overvaluation so far, recent price and rent increases have drawn
attention to persistent housing supply bottlenecks. The government
has repeatedly intervened in the housing market to support the
recovery in the residential construction industry, but it will take time
to restore an adequate supply of new homes. Although commercial
property purchases are largely funded by foreign equity, close
supervision of commercial real estate financing should be
maintained. Since the CBI macro-prudential measures were
announced in late 2014, house price expectations have moderated.
Their review, published in November, resulted in several
refinements, while at the same time leaving the macro-prudential
framework and in particular the loan-to-income ratio intact.
Looking forward, the framework should be maintained to prevent
the potential re-emergence of a vicious circle between house prices
and bank lending.
The next PPS mission is planned to take place in the first half of
2017.
The mission would like to thank the Irish authorities for the helpful
and open discussions.
Floating voters wont forget water

charges farce
Wednesday, March 01, 2017
An Oireachtas committee now looks set to recommend
that the estimated 989,000 households who paid get
some form of refund.
After four years of the hated Irish Water quango; battles
over the installation of 890,000 meters outside homes; the
muddled billing of 1.5m people; and political chaos over
charging households, the money taken from people now
looks set to be refunded to those who paid their charges.
Furthermore, there is little appetite for an excess water
use charge. Water charges are finished.
That was the declaration from TDs across parties
yesterday about pending recommendations to the Dil.
The dragged-out narrative about water charges will be
mulled over for years. It will make wasteful spending by
previous governments look like small change when the full
amounts are totted up.
Initially, there were threats by the last government to
reduce peoples water supply to a trickle; then there were
water quotas for children; and finally there was the farcical
conservation grant to help pay for bills.
An Oireachtas committee examining the future of water
charges now looks set to recommend that the estimated
989,000 households who paid get some form of refund.
It could be by cheque, a tax credit or through Revenue.
The same conclusion though will be reached: Attempts by
the Fine Gael-Labour government to charge for water have
failed.
In fact, a decision to refund households is being declared a
victory for anti-water campaigners, who co-ordinated
marches against the levy across the country.
Committee members are meeting this week to finalise a
report which will go to the Dil and guide parties on how
to vote on the future of water charges. This decision must
be made by the end of March as charges have been frozen
only until then.
As of last night, Fianna Fils position was that it is against
any form of future charge. It wants to end the metering
programme, except for district metering, and says EU
water rules can be bypassed by funding services through
general taxation.
It must not be forgotten that Fianna Fil backed the idea of
water charges when in power up until 2011, where even
its election manifesto promised meters would create
thousands of jobs.
If bills are refunded, the next question is whether
excessive water use will be charged for in the future. Most
TDs and senators in the committee seem opposed to any
future metering system or a possible excess water
charge.
This is despite the country having already paid 500m to
install meters for almost 900,000 homes. Without a
complete metering system, it is hard to see how water
usage per household will be measured.
District metering in Scotland is being mentioned as an
alternative. But abandonment of individual metering
means any excess charge is unlikely.
There are many questions still to be answered, such as
how households will be incentivised to use less water or
whether they will be punished for excessive use.
And what about the meters in the ground; the demands by
the EU that the polluter pays; and the ability to detect
leaks on properties?
Water charging was tried in Dublin and collapsed in 1996.
It now seems that for a second time in around 20 years,
another failed attempt to roll out charges has come to an
end.
Granted, the committee has yet to finish its report by
March 13 and a Dil vote will follow. But the numbers in
the committee and their positions, as of last night, suggest
a regime of future charges is finished.
This leads to the next situation. Under the confidence and
supply agreement, the Government must initiate
legislation to scrap charges if the Dil vote goes that way.
Fianna Fils newfound position on water is likely to put the
Fine Gael government in an awkward position of having to
scrap and refund bills it introduced something voters
are unlikely to forget.
While it may look like Fianna Fil have seen the light on
water charges, it's important to never forget that once in
power, they were fully behind water meters and charges...
"It must not be forgotten that Fianna Fil backed the idea
of water charges when in power up until 2011, where even
its election manifesto promised meters would create
thousands of jobs."
So this might be a ruse to get elected into power in the
not too distant future whereby they can simply flip back to
their original position.
You have been warned folks. Take it seriously because
once they are in power, it's nigh on impossible to remove
them again...
The Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) has said the
water-metering programme should be parked, but not
abandoned.
The Oireachtas Committee on the future funding for water

charges has heard that if the State is going to be the main
funder, then investing in meters is not a priority, and that
leaking pipes should be fixed instead.
However, the Commission has admitted they have no

definitive answer on how to work out whether a house is
being wasteful with water.
Labour TD Jan O'Sullivan said that without water meters, it

will be impossible to charge households who use water
unfairly.
Paul McGowan is from the CER said the proposal from the
expert commission is that the vast majority of the water
should be paid for by the State, and only excessive use
should be charged for.
"In that context, we said that at this time there are other
priorities for capital investment, but that we could come
back and look at whether there is a case for further
metering in due course," he said.
Housing Minister Simon Coveney has said that adults
should be allowed to use 123 litres of water per day free of
charge before excess costs apply under a new system,
writes Juno McEnroe, Political Correspondent.
He said households who had still not paid old water bills
should be pursued but allowed to pay outstanding debts
over a long period.
A special commission last month recommended most

homes get water for free. Mr Coveney said parties wanted
to move on and agree a plan through a new Oireachtas
committee on water charges.
But in an interview with the Irish Examiner he also
admitted that he and the Government had not received
word from Brussels as to whether the new water charges
plan was acceptable.
He expected the free water allowance per adult to be
agreed by the Dil to be 123 litres per day.
The average usage in Ireland is about 46,000 litres. To be

exact it is about 123 litres per day for an average adult...
We need to be at the national average and probably a
little bit more than that so that people who are using
water will have some flexibility around being a little bit
above the average or below the average.
Mr Coveney stressed that he did not want to interfere with

the Oireachtas committee, which will begin its work next
week. But he still believes households using excess
amounts of water must pay more.
If people are using more than that, why should their

neighbours pay for it through general taxation?
So if you have one house in the estate that is filling a

swimming pool out the back, everybody else in the estate
has to pay for it. That is just not fair. The Right2Water
campaign have been accused of doing a major u-turn after
it said that those who abuse or waste water should face
charges, writes Daniel McConnell, Political Editor.
The concession by the group, which has been vehemently
opposed to water charges, was seen as a major climbdown
by the Government.
Housing Minister Simon Coveney, responding to an Irish

Examiner online report of the comments, described the u-
turn as a interesting development.
Addressing the Dil's new Water committee,

representatives of the Right2Water group agreed that
charges should apply in cases where people use excessive
amounts of water.
Under questioning from Fianna Fil's Barry Cowen, Stevie

Fitzpatrick and David Gibney were pressed about previous
comments from Brendan Ogle, the high-profile spokesman
for the Right2Water campaign.
Mr Ogle, like Mr Gibney, speaks for the Right2Water

movement. He was asked specifically if he opposed
charging people for excessive use and he said he was not.
Does the Right2Water movement share that viewpoint?,
Mr Cowen asked.
Mr Fitzpatrick responded It is the viewpoint.

If this committee was in a position to agree a process by
which people who use excessive amounts, in the opinion
of this committee, were charged, is Right2Water happy
with that? asked Mr Cowen.
Yes, was the response from Mr Fitzpatrick.
Mr Cowen asked at what level did the witnesses think was

appropriate to consider excessive.
Let us say the Minister said 123 litres a day was

acceptable and we suggested the limit should be two or
three times that amount and recommended a swimming
pool take for beyond that amount. How would the
witnesses penalise people who use more than that amount
of water? he asked.
Mr Gibney responded: In terms of swimming pools, I live

in a community that does not have a swimming pool and I
do not know anyone who owns a swimming pool.
Right2Water is not opposed to the Government

introducing a swimming pool tax.
There might be a provision in terms of commercial water

charges and taxes. If we want to address waste then let us
address areas where water is wasted.
As much as 41% of water is lost through leaks.
Speaking to the Irish Examiner, Mr Cowen, said the

statement by the Right2Water spokespeople was truly
significant.
Mr Gibney said the Government has given 2.7bn in tax
cuts in recent years while funding for water services has
been cut.
If you want to fund water properly, stop giving away tax

cuts, so let's address the core issue, he said.
Mr Gibney questioned the Government's strategy of

reducing the Universal Social Charge and he singled out
Bank of Ireland boss Richie Boucher as to how much he
pays.
Richie Boucher, who works for Bank of Ireland, pays

63,000 in USC because he is a high earner. That is
equivalent to a salary for two nurses, Mr Gibney said.
Committee chairman Padraig O Ceidigh told Mr Gibney it

was not appropriate to name individuals like that.
Mr Gibney was forced to apologise.
Fine Gael's Martin Heydon accused Mr Gibney of being

opposed to cutting taxes for ordinary workers.
He said that 6% of the highest earners in this country pay

49% of the income tax and USC, which is a fairly
substantial figure.
They are also the key people who drive business and
economic activity in this country, said Mr Heydon.
I am surprised that Mr Gibney is opposed to cuts in

income tax for ordinary workers, he added.
Fianna Fil says the Government will collapse if it refuses
to implement the findings of the Oireachtas committee on
water charges.
But Enda Kenny is insisting the Government cannot

introduce legislation which it believes would break EU law.
The Oireachtas committee on water charges is meeting

again this afternoon to discuss whether there should be a
charge for excessive use'.
In the Dil Enda Kenny said the Government couldn't be

expected to ignore the advice of its own Attorney General:
Minister Coveney has at his disposal, legal advice that is
very strong and very clear and I am sure if ever you sit on
these benches, as Minister for whatever, you would not be
putting through legislation that you have very strong legal
advice that it is illegal to do so.
Update 11.41am: Fianna Fail have warned that any

attempt to undermine or bring down a committee
examining the future of water charges could breach a deal
with Fine Gael and potentially cause a general election,
writes political correspondent Juno McEnroe.
Party housing spokesman Barry Cowen (pictured) warned

that if Housing Minister Simon Coveney didn't do what the
Oireachtas committee wanted that this could result in an
election.
The fresh warning by the Fianna Fail TD comes after
Minister Coveney on Tuesday night also laid down a
warning that he is not willing to completely scrap water
charges, as this would be illegal.
He said that a move to rule out any excess charge would

be against advice from the Attorney General and the
European Commission.
The standoff from both sides is the most serious yet since
the confidence and supply agreement was made between
Fine Gael and Fianna Fai last year.
The Oireachtas committee resumes deliberations about its

report today, which will recommend to the Dail on how to
deal with charges before a final vote at the end of March.
Mr Cowen though, speaking to Sean O'Rourke on RTE, said
Fianna Fail now considered that the full abolishment of
charges was the best way forward. Any 'excess' charge for
wasting water could be expensive to process and bring
back little in revenue, he said. This is the model preferred
by Fine Gael.
Existing legislation instead could be used to pursue people
wasting water, said Mr Cowen.
He said Minister Coveney's intervention was
extraordinary and risked undermining the work of the
committee.
The confidence and supply agreement between the two
parties could break down, admitted the Offaly TD, but it
didn't need to.
Minister Coveney could not bring the committee down or
refuse to implement its recommendations as this would
definitely cause a general election, added Mr Cowen.
Update 10.30am: Fine Gael is rejecting accusations that

the Housing Minister has interfered in the work of the
water services committee.
Last night Simon Coveney insisted he would not bring in

laws on a new system if they do not include charges for
wasting water.
That is despite the fact the confidence and supply

agreement between Fine Gael and Fianna Fail requires him
to introduce legislation to support the system agreed.
Sinn Fein's Eoin O'Broin, who is a member of the

committee, was not impressed with the Minister's
comments: The intervention by Minister Coveney last
night is quite unprecedented.
He set this process up, he said he wanted us to deliberate

and deliver a report and at that point the Oireachtas would
have its say.
I think what he was doing last night was interfering.
Update 9.29am: Fianna Fil has accused Housing

Minister Simon Coveney of disrespecting the Oireachtas
committee charged with addressing water charges.
His comment comes after the Minister intervened last
night and said he would not bring in laws on a new system
- if they do not include charges for wasting the utility.
The Confidence and Supply Arrangement between Fine
Gael and Fianna Fil requires him to introduce legislation
to support the system agreed by the committee.
Michael McGrath
Fianna Fil's Spokesperson for Finance Michael McGrath

says the intervention is disrespectful.
What Simon Coveney said last night means that Fine Gael
would be flagrantly breaching the agreement they entered
into with Fianna Fil whereby they gave a commitment to
facilitate the passage of legislation in Dil ireann to give
effect to the will of the Dil, he said.
So he seems to be prepared to throw that out the
window.
Simon Coveney
We are honouring our agreement and were not going to

be derailed by Simon Coveneys efforts to come across as
the strong man in all of this.
Fine Gael TD Alan Farrell, who is a member of the

committee which is working on the water service funding,
has dismissed the accusation against Minister Coveney as
'hilarious' and says he is hopeful the issue can be
resolved.
Alan Farrell
The Committee has to consider the amount of work left,

he said.
Were not a point where were drafting the final remarks.
Were not done yet, and I think that this matter can be I
hope that this matter can be resolved.
Earlier:
A fresh row has emerged over water charges which could

put pressure on the Confidence and Supply Arrangement
between FineGael and Fianna Fil.
The deal between Fine Gael and Fianna Fil included

setting up an Oireachtas Committee to decide the future
of water charges - with Housing Minister Simon Coveney
to introduce whatever laws that new system would
require.
However, in a dramatic intervention last night, he said he
would not bring forward those laws if the new system did
not include charges for households who waste water.
Minister Coveney says European law requires those

measures, and he would legislate to drop them.
"It is that I won't, but it's really that I can't," he said.
"I'm not going to take a position that is contrary to the

independent legal advice the Government has from the
Attorney General's office.
"That would just be blatant irresponsible of me, and I

won't do it."
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/floating
-voters-wont-forget-water-charges-farce-
444058.html
Confidence and
Supply Arrangement
Confidence and Supply Arrangement to facilitate a
Fine Gael led Minority Government.
Fianna Fil has agreed to facilitate a Fine Gael led
Minority Government under the terms of the
Framework attached to this document.
The Confidence and Supply votes are dependent
on the full implementation of the policy principles
attached to this document (Appendix 1).
The details on the Commission on Water Services
and the Special Oireachtas Committee on the
Funding of Water Services are attached in
Appendix 2.
Fianna Fil will be an independent opposition party
that will continue to pursue its own policies in the
32nd Dil through legislation, private member bills
and through Oireachtas Committees.
This list of six key policy priorities is not a
programme for government. It forms the essential
requirements for a viable supply and confidence
arrangement.
Core Principles for the Confidence and Supply

Arrangement for a Fine Gaelled Government
This is the document that outlines the confidence
and supply arrangement to facilitate a Fine Gael-
led Minority Government subject to the ongoing
implementation of the attached policy principles:
Fianna Fil agrees to:
c abstain in the election of Taoiseach, nomination of
Ministers and also the reshuffling of Ministers;
c facilitate Budgets consistent with the agreed policy
principles attached to this document;
c vote against or abstain on any motions of no
confidence in the Government, Ministers, and
financial measures (eg money bills) recognised as
confidence measures;
c maintain pairing arrangements for EU Council
meetings, North South meetings and other
Government business as agreed.
The Fine Gael-led Minority Government

agrees to:
accept that Fianna Fil is an independent party in
opposition and is not a party to the Programme for
Government;
recognise Fianna Fils right to bring forward policy
proposals and bills to implement commitments in
its own manifesto;
publish all agreements with Independent Deputies
and other political parties in full;
allow any opposition bills (that are not money bills)
that pass 2nd stage and proceed to Committee
stage within 10 working weeks;
implement the agreed policy principles attached to
this document over a full term of Government;
have an open approach to avoiding policy
surprises; and
introduce a reformed budgetary process in
accordance with the OECD review of the Oireachtas
along with the agreed Dil reform process.
Should an event arise that has potential to

undermine this arrangement, efforts will be made
to have it resolved by the two Party Leaders.
It is agreed that both parties to this agreement will
review this Framework Arrangement at the end of
2018. It is agreed that the final arrangements will
be recorded in a written document signed by the
respective Party Leaders.
This is a political arrangement and is not
justiciable.
Appendix 1
Policy Framework for a Confidence and
Supply Arrangement to facilitate a Fine Gael
-Led Minority Government
Irelands Economy
12 Maintain our commitment to meeting in full the
domestic and EU Fiscal rules as enshrined in law.
13 Facilitate the passage of budgets presented by the
Government within these rules and which are
consistent with the policy principles contained in
this document.
14 To address unmet needs, introduce budgets that
will involve at least a 2:1 split between investment
in public spending and tax reductions.
15 Base health expenditure on multi-year budgeting,
supported by a 5 year HSE Service Plan based on
realistic, verifiable projections.
16 Introduce reductions in the Universal Social Charge
(USC) on a fair basis with an emphasis on low and
middle income earners.
17 Establish a Rainy Day Fund.
18 Maintain Irelands 12.5% corporation tax, and
engage constructively with any measures to work
towards international tax reform while critically
analysing proposals that may not be in Irelands
long term interests.
Industrial relations and public sector pay
Recognise full implementation of the Lansdowne
Road Agreement in accordance with the timelines
agreed and recognise that the recruitment issues
in the public service must be addressed as part of
that Agreement.
Establish a Public Service Pay Commission to
examine pay levels across the public service,
including entry levels of pay.
Support the gradual, negotiated repeal of the
Financial Emergency Measures in the Public
Interest Acts having due regard to the priority to
improve public services and in recognition of the
essential role played by public servants.
Tackle the problems caused by the increased
casualisation of work that prevents workers from
being able to save or have any job security.
Respect the Workplace Relations Commission and
the Labour Court as the proper forum for state
intervention in industrial relation disputes and
ensure that both bodies are supported and
adequately resourced to fulfil their roles.
Securing affordable homes and tackling
homelessness
Significantly increase and expedite the delivery of
social housing units, remove barriers to private
housing supply and initiate an affordable housing
scheme.
Retain mortgage interest relief beyond the current
end date of December 2017 on a tapered basis.
Increase rent supplement and Housing Assistance
payment (HAP) limits by up to 15% taking account
of geographic variations in market rents, and
extend the roll out by local authorities of the HAP,
including the capacity to make discretionary
enhanced payments.
Protect the family home and introduce additional
long term solutions for mortgage arrears cases.
Improve supports and services for older people to
live independently in their own home, including
provisions for pension increases.
Provide greater protection for mortgage holders,
tenants and SMEs whose loans have been
transferred to non-regulated entities (vulture
funds).
Creating decent jobs & supporting enterprise
c Prioritise regional development across all policy
areas.
c Fully implement Food Harvest 2020 and Food Wise
2025.
c Secure the future of family farms and support our
fishing industry.
c Seek to introduce a PRSI scheme for the self-
employed and provide a supportive tax regime for
entrepreneurs and the self-employed.
c Increase capital investment in transport,
broadband, education, health and flood defences
following the mid-term review of the Capital Plan
which is expected mid-2017.
c Examine all options for increased credit availability,
competition and quality of service in the banking
sector through the development of new and
existing platforms.
c Develop a strategy for the growth and
development of the credit union sector.
Cutting costs for families and improving
public services
Reform the public sector to ensure more accessible
public services.
Maintain a humane approach for discretionary
medical card provision.
Develop targeted supports to reduce childcare
costs, broaden parental choice and increase
supports for stay at home parents.
Tackle child poverty by increasing community
based early intervention programmes.
Ring fence 15m in 2017 to fund the National
Treatment Purchase Fund to urgently address
waiting lists for those waiting longest.
Reduce primary school class sizes; reintroduce
guidance counselling to secondary schools and
increase financial supports for post graduate
students with a particular focus on those from low
income households.
Take all necessary action to tackle high variable
interest rates.
Seek to alleviate pressures affecting household
budgets across energy, childcare, medical and
insurance costs.
Tackling crime and developing community

services
Increase Garda numbers to 15,000; invest in CCTV
and mandate the Policing Authority to oversee a
review of the boundaries of Garda districts and the
dispersement of Garda stations.
Increase funding to LEADER.
Strengthen the Social Inclusion and Community
Activation Programme (SICAP) and develop new
Community Development Schemes for rural areas;
and reactivate and increase funding to RAPID areas
through the Local Authorities.
Improve services and increase supports for people
with disabilities: particularly for early assessment
and intervention for children with special needs
and provision of adult day services.
Fully implement Vision for Change in the area of
mental health.
Strengthen and develop cross border bodies and
services in Northern Ireland and implement the
Fresh Start agreement.
Establish a Judicial Appointments Commission to
identify the most suitable candidates for judicial
office.
Ensure that local Government funding, structure
and responsibilities strengthen local democracy.
Increase investment in the Irish language.
Appendix 2
FF-FG Agreement on Water Services
Irish Water will be retained as a single national
utility in public ownership responsible for the
delivery of water and wastewater services.
The Government will establish an External Advisory
Body on a statutory basis to build public
confidence in Irish Water. It will advise on
measures needed to improve the transparency and
accountability of Irish Water. It will publish advice
to the Government and give quarterly reports to an
Oireachtas Committee on the performance by Irish
Water on the implementation of its business plan,
with particular regard to:
Cost reduction and efficiency improvements.
Procurement, remuneration and staffing policies.
Infrastructure delivery and leakage reductions.
Improvements in water quality, including the
elimination of boil water notices.
Responsiveness to the needs of communities and
enterprise.
The Government will suspend the Water
Conservation Grant, while restoring exchequer
funding to Group Water Schemes to pre-2015
levels, implement multi-annual funding for the
Rural Water Programmes and revise grant levels to
new group water schemes and for the
refurbishment of private wells.
The Government will, within six weeks of its
appointment, introduce and support legislation in
the Oireachtas to suspend domestic water charges
for a period of nine months from the end of the
current billing cycle. The suspension of domestic
water charges will be extended by the Government
if this is required and requested by the Special
Oireachtas committee on the Funding of Domestic
Water Services (see below) in order to facilitate the
completion of its work and the consideration of its
recommendations by the Oireachtas.
The Government will establish within eight weeks
of its appointment an Expert Commission to make
recommendations for the sustainable long-term
funding model for the delivery of domestic water
and wastewater services by Irish Water (see draft
terms of reference below). The Expert Commission
will endeavour to report within five months of its
establishment.
The recommendations of the Expert Commission,
will be considered by the Special Oireachtas
Committee which will endeavour to make its own
recommendations to the Oireachtas within a period
of 3 months. The recommendations of the Special
Oireachtas Committee will be considered and
voted upon by the Oireachtas within a one month
period.
The Fine Gael and Fianna Fil parties reserve their
right to adopt differing positions on any
consequent legislation or resolutions being
debated by the Oireachtas.
The Government will facilitate the passage of
legislation (whether it be a money bill or otherwise)
for the implementation of the recommendations in
relation to domestic water charging supported by
the Oireachtas (including abolition, a reformed
charging regime or other options).
We affirm that those who have paid their water
bills to date will be treated no less favourably than
those who have not.
Draft Terms of Reference for the Expert
Commission
An Expert Commission will be set up to assess and
make recommendation upon the funding of
domestic water services in Ireland and
improvements in water quality, taking into
account:
The maintenance and investment needs of the
water and waste system on short, medium and
long-term bases;
Proposals on how the national utility in State
ownership would be able to borrow to invest in
water infrastructure;
The need to encourage water conservation,
including through reviewing information campaigns
on water conservation in other countries;
Irelands domestic and international environmental
standards and obligations;
The role of the Regulator; and
Submissions from all interested parties.
The Commission will be empowered to commission
relevant research and hear evidence to assist this
work. The Commission shall endeavour to
complete its work within five months.
https://www.fiannafail.ie/confidence-and-
supply-arrangement/
This shore is outside our front door. It's the only one in the
area. All the others were replaced by water meters.
Private security thugs intimidated and assaulted local

residents that stood up against the installation of those
meters. The thugs were protected by Gardai. One of those
who stood up was a heavily pregnant woman. Lisa Carroll.
Our daughter is nearly two now.
Most of the locals in the area felt so intimidated that even

the brave ones backed down. People from outside came to
help. Men and women. Strangers. Heroes.
Two of those people sat in our home. They were kids in

their twenties. Rosie Leonard and Oisin Fagan. Two others
lead the Right2Water campaign. Brendan Ogle and Dave
Gibney. Strangers changing the country. All four would
become major forces in Home Sweet Home.
We are all in profound debt to the people across the

country who found the courage to step up and fight for our
betterment. Not just because they prevented the
privatisation of our water but because they have sown
seeds of greatness.
Perhaps the Right2Change is not an impossible concept

after all. Fighting for what's right can begin at any time.
Who knows what seeds planted today can become. But
you have to plant the damn things. You have to get your
hands a little dirty. If we nurture those seeds who the hell
knows what we can become as a nation.
This will have to become an uprising.. an awakening of a Nation to
stop what has become a disaster for every man woman and Child.
And Slavery for future generations if we do not put an end to it . We
are being sleep-walked into a total disaster. Evictions. Suicides,
homelessness. Fear and intimidation of any against the takeover of
our most valuable Asset. Our Water.. we need to stand up for
ourselves now. Not in the future. We need to discover where we
want our Nation to go. We need to March quickly out of a disgusting
EU who care nothing for us except to make new rules to make us
pay more and more of their debts to Banks. We need to stop our
own Banks putting genuine people out of their homes to sell
valuable properties to Vulture funds. We need a Garda force that is
upright and working with decent people for a fair law and order. And
an Irish Army we can be proud of not an EU force.
And this is ours. Just a few of us stood our ground in our
estate. So proud of everyone who did the same. The
power of the people is greater than the people in power,
so stick that in yer pipe n smoke it Coveney!!
April 23rd 2014 ( Jesus was it that long ago ) a group of community
activist, this group Ballyphehane/South parish says no went to
Ashbrook Togher, to stop the installation of water meters,that day
didn't just happen, it was planned .
We as a group had been together for a few years working within our
community and further afield during the ill fated CAHWT, but we
always knew the WT in CAH was going to be the big one -water,
when most groups in cork had dissolved or to put it another way ,
been destroyed by politics of not been political by the then SP now
AAA ( that's a story for another day ) we stayed Together for better
or worse,it was like a marriage built on hate for the neoliberal
parties of the right , who between them were destroying any fabric
of social Justice in this country( and still are ) where bankers and
developers were prioritise over the elderly, infirmed and your family.
Their polices targeted the most vulnerable people within our
society( they still do ) this group had enough of waiting for change
and decided to start pushing for it .
March 2014 at one of our weekly meetings, it was voted that we
would take direct action against the installation of water meters,
leaflets had already been distributed about the dangers of water
metering and the threat they ,combined with Irish water Ltd would
pose to our water and waste water services, we had held public
meetings on the subject, some were well attended, but like
everything else people soon lose interest and the numbers
attending dropped, this was a problem that we had to solve and
solved it we did.
We decided again at one of our weekly meetings to bring the
meetings to them and so was born the residents meetings, meetings
on the greens one of the most effective tools used by us during this
long battle with IW and the state . It was at one of these residents
meetings in Ashbrook Togher that the residents agreed to the
blockade, not all but enough to make it democratic, in the few
weeks that followed IW threw everything they could at us, we
camped out from 5 am to 6 pm sometimes later depending on the
mood of the installers for weeks , determined no to let them in,
there was great community spirit in those weeks where laughter put
rest to the tiredness we all felt, food was supplied, stories swapped
between battles .
We took what we learnt from Ashbrook to all parts of cork city and
county we spend months doing residents meetings and helping
residents in estates stop IW and feel like communities again, where
people who only waved good morning to each other now talked and
stood shoulder to shoulder fighting to keep their communities meter
free, to stop this toll on their most basic human right .
What started in Ashbrook and spread across this island of ours was
an awakening of consciousness within our communities through
direct non violent action, what happened in cork was remarkable,
where cross community action was the name of the game,
communities from Mahon, mayfield , Togher Dublin hill Ballyvolane
the glen , Blackpool , passage , Cobh Carrigaline and other parts
came together to stop IW , we put together some of the biggest
demos this city has seen, we organised fundraisers to subsidise
buses to the R2W Demos in Dublin , all of them where attended by
us . But through all of this one group was everywhere , BSPTSN I
doubt you would find a blockade in this city where some of this
group was not present.
We meet some great people along the way, none more important
that Noreen Murphy who for years was the voice against water
privatisation in cork long before it became popular for our politicians
to talk about, she has always been a friend to this group and has an
encyclopaedic knowledge of this subject, gained from years of
researching the topic, so when the time came we would not have to
face water poverty in this country and face water privatisation .
The dail will vote on the future of IW, the charges and the metering
program in the next few days , already the leaks are starting to flow
( pun intended ) they are along the lines of , the charges are gone,
those who paid will be refunded , a dedicated water tax ?, only
those who use excessive amounts of water will have to pay into the
future ? Back room deals at play between FF and FG ( we all knew
that would happen) . And we have a lot of people claiming this is a
victory, FF in particular even delivered leaflets around this parish
saying they are the ones who will get rid of water charges ?
We as a group are not claiming any victory as this, if it plays out the
way it seems to be going could not be called such, we won't be
celebrating till we get what we started fighting for and that was the
abolition of IW and the charges and an end to the metering
program, a constitutional referendum enshrining the ownership and
management of our water and waste water services .When that day
comes there will be no one group responsible , no political party to
claim it as a victory for them it will be the people's victory , a victory
fought for through mass civil disobedience a victory for those who
were brave enough , to say no , not in my street no to your charges
no to IW and no to privatisation .
We won't be claiming it as our victory, no, how could we , we are
just saying we did it better than the rest
RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN

SECOND CYCLE 2018 -- 2021
OPEN 28th FEB -- 31st AUG 2017
Can be view on DEPT of Housing,Planing, Community and

Local Government.web site
Water charges victory closes in. Fine Gael say they will
reject the findings of the commission. This could lead to
the fall of the government. Time to call an election and let
the people have their say. We need to kick out the landlord
parties.
Fine Gael dont want an election. They would rather hang on as long
as they can and hope a new leader brings them a bounce. But
events may catch up with them when a Dil majority votes them
down on water charge
Ye believe that the funding of the fixing of the Water Infrastructure
should be done through GT, the WI needs billions of euros in
funding, so what tax increases do u propose to implement or where
do u suggest the funding come from. Also as of now the commission
would seem to be split on the agreement
There should be no discussions with any water

commission ,Fine Gael ,Fianna Fai,l Labour ,Green Party ,or
anybody that agrees with water re-charging , When you
have a discussion /talks what is expected is that you give
a inch here a inch there ,With politicians spinning some of
your words to show you agree with their policies .Not a
inch means not a cent ,not "Generous Allowances " on
water .Not that Irish Water continue as a super -quango
.with assets paid for by the Irish People ,Not a inch, not a
cent and a disbandment of Irish Water ,anything else is a
sellout .
The people will continue the WAR until Irish Water is dead and
buried. They need to be sent packing no matter where they try to
get a foothold on Water, as the ultimate aim for IW is to SELL Water.
Not to maintain it. Not to improve it. Just a Water grab to sell it
under the noses of a Gullible trusting people. That goes for this
CETA also. Which has plenty in its agreement on Water - grabbing
and sale.
The village idiots that screwed the country up assisted by a few
others then they are responsible for selling off the country and the
National health by stealth. They are the ones who destroyed our
country and don't want us to get it back the bloody traitors.
They can have all the qualifications available but their record in
office proves they are incompetent at best. Tragically they were
voted in by the people. Get London sorted out and the others will
follow. From what the media has reported London is crumbling as a
society and you clowns in authority think its safe to ignore. The
police and law courts don't have control.
he ne on the left warmonger Blair is the worst of the lot . It is him
that has caused all the problems we have in the world now a days .
Instead of being in the photo he should be behind bars for his
treason to the British People
These are the arse holes that carried on the lies and deceit of the EU
and are still doing it and the silly fuckers of Stoke and Copeland still
voted for the same old parties that they represent,it's about time
people in this country had the guts to stand up for their convictions..
Two of them created an enormous debt for the country, then they
are followed by a weak conservative party that allowed the Liberals
dominate a coalition government. The effort to get some sort of deal
from an unsympathetic EU lead by Germany, France and the
Commission, was to say the least pathetic, being reminiscent of
Chamberlain. They now think they know better than the British
people who are feed up with these self opinionated group of
scrounging wasters. Send them over to Europe without a return
ticket, never to be seen or heard again.
Compendium of best practices for water, BlueSCities waste water,
solid waste and climate adaptation
http://www.bluescities.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2015/12/D2_3_Formatted_v7.pdf
Programme for the Porto Water Innovation Week including the 2017
EIP Water conference is announced.
http://www.eip-water.eu/sites/default/files/PWIW_Save_the_Date.pdf
Water Integrity Network, (2016).
https://www.viawater.nl/files/documents/wigo_book_2016_full.pdf
The challenges of water, waste and climate change in cities
http://www.eip-
water.eu/sites/default/files/Koop%20and
%20Van%20Leeuwen%202016.pdf
Presentation outline Introduction to

Copenhagen Introduction to the climate
change adaptation work in Copenhagen
Financing adaptation measures in
Copenhagen Storm water Flooding
from the sea Involving the private sector
http://resilient-
cities.iclei.org/fileadmin/sites/resilient-
cities/files/Webinar_Series/Webinar_Pres
entations/Leonardsen__financing_adaptat
ion_in_Copenhagen_ICLEI_sept_2012.pdf
Improved water source (% of population
with access)
Access to an improved water source refers to the percentage of the
population using an improved drinking water source. The improved
drinking water source includes piped water on premises (piped
household water connection located inside the users dwelling, plot
or yard), and other improved drinking water sources (public taps or
standpipes, tube wells or boreholes, protected dug wells, protected
springs, and rainwater collection).
F SourceWHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme ( JMP ) for Water
Supply and Sanitation ( wssinfo.org ).
F License react-text: 1726 /react-text Open
F react-text: 1737 Aggregation Method /react-text react-
text: 1738 : /react-text Weighted average
F react-text: 1744 Development Relevance /react-text
react-text: 1745 : /react-text Water is considered to be the most
important resource for sustaining ecosystems, which provide life-
supporting services for people, animals, and plants. Global access to safe
water and proper hygiene education can reduce illness and death from
disease, leading to improved health, poverty reduction, and socio-
economic development. However, many countries are challenged to
provide these basic necessities to their populations, leaving people at risk
for water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH)-related diseases. Because
contaminated water is a major cause of illness and death, water quality is
a determining factor in human poverty, education, and economic
opportunities. Lack of access to adequate water contributes to deaths and
illness, especially in children. Water based disease transmission by
drinking contaminated water is responsible for significant outbreaks of
diseases such as cholera and typhoid and include diarrhea, viral hepatitis
A, cholera, dysentery and dracunculiasis (Guineaworm disease).
Improvement of access to clean drinking water is a crucial element in the
reduction of under-five mortality and morbidity. Almost one tenth of the
global disease burden could be prevented by increasing access to safe
drinking water, and improving sanitation and hygiene. Further, annually,
safer water could prevent 1.4 million child deaths from diarrhea 860 000
child deaths from malnutrition. Economic benefits of improved drinking
water include higher economic productivity, more education, and health-
care savings. There are disparities in urban and rural areas - the number
of people in rural areas using unimproved water sources is five times
greater than in urban areas. Eight out of ten people living in urban areas
have piped water connections on their premises, compared to only three
out of ten people in rural areas. An estimated 95 percent of the urban
population globally used an improved water supply source in the early
2010s, compared to about 80 percent of the rural population. Women and
children spend millions of hours each year fetching water. The chore
diverts their time from other important activities (for example attending
school, caring for children, participating in the economy). When water is
not available on premises and has to be collected, women and girls are
almost two and a half times more likely than men and boys to be the main
water carriers for their families. Many international organizations use
access to safe drinking water and hygienic sanitation facilities as a
measure for progress in the fight against poverty, disease, and death.
Access to safe drinking water is also considered to be a human right, not a
privilege, for every man, woman, and child. Economic benefits of
improved drinking water include higher economic productivity, more
education, and health-care savings. WHO and UNICEF estimate that
improved drinking water sources are now being used by about 90 percent
of the global population. Four out of ten people without access to
improved drinking water live in sub-Saharan Africa.
F react-text: 1751 Limitations and Exceptions /react-text
react-text: 1752 : /react-text The data on access to an improved
water source measure the percentage of the population with ready access
to water for domestic purposes. Access to drinking water from an
improved source does not ensure that the water is safe or adequate, as
these characteristics are not tested at the time of survey. But improved
drinking water technologies are more likely than those characterized as
unimproved to provide safe drinking water and to prevent contact with
human excreta. While information on access to an improved water source
is widely used, it is extremely subjective, and such terms as safe,
improved, adequate, and reasonable may have different meaning in
different countries despite official WHO definitions (see Definitions). Even
in high-income countries treated water may not always be safe to drink.
Access to an improved water source is equated with connection to a
supply system; it does not take into account variations in the quality and
cost (broadly defined) of the service.
F react-text: 1758 Periodicity /react-text react-text: 1759
: /react-text Annual
react-text: 1765 Statistical Concept and
Methodology /react-text react-text: 1766 : /react-text The
data are derived by the Joint Monitoring Programme of the World Health
Organization (WHO) and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) based
on national censuses and nationally representative household surveys.
The coverage rates for water and sanitation are based on information
from service users on the facilities their households actually use rather
than on information from service providers, which may include
nonfunctioning systems. While the estimates are based on use, the Joint
Monitoring Programme reports use as access, because access is the term
used in the Millennium Development Goal target for drinking water and
sanitation. WHO/UNICEF define an improved drinking-water source as one
that, by nature of its construction or through active intervention, is
protected from outside contamination, in particular from contamination
with fecal matter. Improved water sources include piped water into
dwelling, plot or yard; piped water into neighbor's plot; public
tap/standpipe; tube well/borehole; protected dug well; protected spring;
and rainwater.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.H
2O.SAFE.ZS?locations=IE
reused water in the EU (new EU legislation)
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_env_006
_water_reuse_instrument_en.pdf
EU Citizenship Report: Commission promotes rights,
values and democracy
Brussels, 24 January 2017
Today, the European Commission publishes its third EU

Citizenship Report taking stock of progress since 2014 and
further presenting actions to ensure citizens can fully
enjoy their rights when working, travelling, studying or
participating in elections.
Europeans are more than ever aware of their status as

citizens of the Union and the proportion of Europeans
wanting to know more about their rights continues to
increase. Four out of five Europeans cherish, in particular,
the right to free movement that allows them to live, work,
study and do business anywhere in the EU (December
2016 Eurobarometer). However, a lack of awareness
means EU citizens do not fully exercise their right to vote
in European and local elections and many are unaware of
their right to consular protection from other Member
States' embassies. The 2017 EU Citizenship Report sets
out the Commission's priorities in further raising
awareness of these rights and making them easier to use
in practice.
Vra Jourov, Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and
Gender Equality, responsible for EU citizenship rights,
said: 87% of Europeans are aware of their EU citizenship,
which is more than ever before, but they are not always
aware of the rights that come with EU citizenship. EU
citizenship entails important rights and freedoms and also
the possibility for democratic participation and active
involvement in the EU decision making process. We want
to empower citizens to know more about their EU rights
and use them more easily.
Dimitris Avramopoulos, Commissioner for Migration, Home
Affairs and Citizenship: "The European Union exists for the
European citizens and through them. To ensure that EU
citizens can fully enjoy their rights and freedoms in times
of increasing transnational challenges, we are committed
to continuing our work on strengthening security within
the EU and by stepping up the protection of our common
external borders."
The report is based on input from citizens through surveys
and a public consultation, and focuses on four areas: 1)
promoting EU citizenship rights and EU common values; 2)
increasing citizens' participation in the democratic life of
the EU; 3) simplifying EU citizens' daily lives; 4)
strengthening security and promoting equality.
In order to achieve these goals the Commission will take a
number of actions, including:
Organising an EU-wide information campaign on EU
citizenship rights, to help citizens better understand their
rights.
Strengthening voluntary engagement: The Commission
wants to create more opportunities for young people in
Europe to make a meaningful contribution to society and
show solidarity. The European Solidarity Corps, launched
on 7 December 2016, gives young people the opportunity
to gain valuable experience while showing solidarity to
those in need.
Proposing a Single Digital Gateway' to give citizens easy
online access to information, assistance and problem-
solving services on a wide range of administrative
questions.
Intensifying the Citizens' Dialogues and public debate, to
exchange views with EU citizens and increase their
understanding of what impact the Union has on their daily
lives. Already, 125 Citizens' dialogues have been
organised since the beginning of the Juncker Commission.
Promoting best practices to help citizens vote and stand
for EU elections, particularly in the run up to the 2019
elections.
Background
Any person who holds the nationality of an EU Member
State is also an EU citizen. EU citizenship does not replace
national citizenship, but complements it. It is a valuable
status which gives citizens many freedoms such as free
movement, consular protection, and the right to vote and
stand as candidates in municipal and European Parliament
elections wherever they live in the European Union.
The European Commission guarantees that rights
associated with EU citizenship are a reality for citizens.
Since 2010, it reports every three years on the main
initiatives taken to promote and strengthen European
citizenship. The reports are based on feedback from
citizens, from petitions submitted, and from direct
dialogues that Commissioners have with citizens. In 2015,
the Commission carried out a public consultation and two
surveys, which focused on EU citizenship and on electoral
rights, to feed into the 2017 EU Citizenship Report.
For more information
2017 EU Citizenship Report
Factsheet on Commission actions in the field of EU
citizenship 2013-2016
Summary of the 2017 EU Citizenship report
Factsheet on 2015 Public Consultation on EU citizenship
Technical report on the legislative developments and
jurisprudence on EU citizenship (Article 25)
EU Citizenship programme
2015 survey on electoral rights
2015 survey on citizenship
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/docu
ment/files/2015_public_consultation_fact
sheet_en.pdf
Domestic Water Charges in

Europe
1 May 2013
Introduction
This note sets out data on the level of domestic water charges in Europe.
Pricing Water in Europe

Given the variety of pricing structures in place across Europe, it is difficult to
get a good uniform measure of water pricing. Any approach to compare water
pricing is going to be imperfect given the variety of pricing schemes in place.
The approach taken in the Global Water Intelligence Report 2011 is to take
the costs based on fixed costs and a consumption of 15, 000 litres per person
per month (500 litres per person per day) and then divide by 15 to give a price
per 1,000 litres. These costs also include wastewater costs.
The average price of water across many European Cities varies from 0.40 up
to 5.75 per 1,000 litres. Within countries huge variation can be seen. In
Sweden, for example, citizens in Malmo pay just 1.03 while those in
Gothenberg pay 4.19 per 1000 litres.
Of the 65 western European cities reported on who charge for water (Dublin,
Cork and Belfast being the only ones who do not) only one city (Glasgow) has
a decreasing price structure, i.e. the more water you use the less you pay per
litre. This can be thought of like a bulk buying discount. 20 cities (mainly
located in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy) have increasing pricing, so the
more you use the more you pay per litre. The remaining 44 cities (Germany,
France and UK) have linear charging schemes, so you pay the same price per
litre regardless of how much you are using.
Table 1: Water prices across selected cities (per 1000 litres)
Source: Global Water Intelligence Annual Tariff Survey September

2011.
The average price in the 65 Cities that charge for water in Western Europe is
1.91 per 1,000 litre (again based on charges for 15,000 litres of consumption
and fixed charges in a month and then dividing by 15).
Even within these three main groups there are a variety of mechanisms for
charging people for water. Many counties have a block pricing structure i.e.
the first 500 litres are charged at a low price or free, then each subsequent
block of water is more costly. It is also noticeable that those that charge on an
increasing scale (mainly Mediterranean countries) tend to charge lesson
average (1.25) compared to those who charge in a linear fashion (2.20), i.e.
you pay the same rate for each litre of water.
Estimates of Irish water consumption are approximately 150 litres per person
per day. International experience tells us that consumption is likely to decline
by about 15% if charges are introduced. This would leave consumption of
about 127.5 litres on average. This translates to about 3,825 litres per person
per month.
Pricing Water in Ireland

According to the Census 2011 there are 1.39m households connected to the
public mains or in a local authority group scheme. Those in private group
water schemes will not be charged for their water supply, however some may
be charged for discharging waste water into the public system.
The current costs of providing water and maintaining the current infrastructure
are about 1.23bn per year. 221m per year is collected from charging firms
for water (despite low collection rates) leaving exchequer funding of just over
1bn. The EU/IMF Programme contains a commitment that water services
will become substantially self-funded over time.
If one were to use the average price of water across Western Europe (1.91
per 1,000 litres per month) that would give the average consumer a bill of
7.30 per month or 87.67 per year, assuming there is no free allocation.
Given that the average household has 2.78 people, the yield would be about
339m (assuming full collection). To generate 500m in revenue the average
household charge would be 360 or about 129.31 per person.
Free Allocation
The Programme for Government states that there will be a free allowance and
people will only be charged for their use above this allowance 1, This will mean
that there will be a higher per litre charge than otherwise would be the case as
revenue is only being generated from a smaller pool of chargeable water. The
higher the free allowance is, the higher the price on large volumes of water
there will have to be.
Regardless of which way this balance is struck an average of 360 would be
required from each household to collect 500 million. If the full 1bn of costs
were to be recouped, the household charge would be 720 on average.
However, costs should fall over time as scale economies are realized.
Notes:
1 See Water for Poor People : Lessons from France and Belgium by Dr Henri
Smets for an alternative to a free water allowance for all.
UK White Paper on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe EU-UK-

Government publishes White Paper on the "Treaty establishing a Constitution
for Europe" (Cm 6309)- White Paper
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/sep/uk-gov-wp-eu-con.pdf
Alan Duck Arse Mouth Kelly wants

water charges and meters,
because Europe says so
Update 4.45pm: A meeting of the Oireachtas committee
on water charges has failed to reach agreement about the
possibility of scrapping charges entirely.
The 20-member committee will instead be given another
draft of a final report next Tuesday.
Fine Gael and Fianna Fil have continued to clash today
about the legality of water charges being scrapped for all
customers.
We have to get our feet on the streets again as this Government just
don't get it we are not paying for water that we already pay for they
are messing around with the Irish people and trying to treat us as
fools with they the Government saying we should pay ,we don't
have to pay or maybe you will have to pay again ,, if the Oireachtas
Committee can't decide and the Government want us to pay then I
think it time we show then again are marching on the streets and
show we the people can make up our minds . It's OUR WATER NOT
THE GOVERNMENT OR IW WATER THE IRISH PEOPLE AND THE
TAXPAYER.
Special Relationship- Impact of a U.S.-U.K. Free Trade Agreement

Testimony of Dr. Nile Gardiner Director, Margaret Thatcher Center for
Freedom The Heritage Foundation
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA18/20170201/105501/HMTG-115-FA18-
Wstate-GardinerN-20170201.pdf
Joint Subcommittee Hearing: Next Steps
in the Special Relationship...
(EventID=105501)
Feb 1, 2017
Follow @HouseForeign
Joint Subcommittee Hearing: Next Steps in the Special
RelationshipImpact of a U.S.-U.K. Free Trade Agreement
Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade
Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), Chairman
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Chairman
02.01.2017 10:00am 2172 Rayburn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwSfmkkJT10
If your sensible and responsible all the time sure you'd
never do anything..
Tune in to TV3 this evening 10pm to watch Inside Apollo
House documentary
"Ireland, as distinct from her people, is nothing to me; and
the man who is bubbling over with love and enthusiasm
for "Ireland," and can yet pass unmoved through our
streets and witness all the wrong and the suffering, shame
and degradation wrought upon the people of Ireland-yea,
wrought by Irishmen upon Irish men and women, without
burning to end it, is, in my opinion, a fraud and a liar in his
heart, no matter how he loves that combination of
chemical elements he is pleased to call Ireland." James
Connolly
https://www.facebook.com/TVThreeIreland/videos/1015450
5196464538/
23 February 2017
Exclusive: Inside Apollo House, tonight at 10pm on TV3.
Join us tonight to discover the inside and real story of how a group
of people took over a NAMA-controlled former office block in Dublin
City Centre and turned it into a shelter for the homeless.
Help fight extreme inequality by ending tax dodging!

Right now, the richest 62 people on the planet own as
much as the poorest half of humanity. 1% now have more
wealth than the rest of the world combined. One of the
key trends underlying this extreme inequality is a
systematic abuse of an unfair global tax system that has
reached unprecedented scale and stands in the way of
ending global poverty.
Its time to end tax dodging! To do so, we need the
Government to close loopholes that allow companies to
avoid their tax bills. Do you have 10 seconds to sign? Click
the button.
Local Government Financial Provisions Act 1997 We Pay
Irish Water Through Irish motor Taxes pdf doc
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/29/enacted/en/pdf
Kerry Schemes on an agency basis for Irish Water ..... Local

Government (Financial Provisions Act), 1997 ... DoEH&LG Circular
MT 672 - Motor Tax liability of road marking vehicles
http://www.kerrycoco.ie/en/foi/thefile,9440,en.pdf
Office of the Attorney General Annual Report 2013
http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/pub/Annual_Report_2013.pdf
local government (e.g. periodic reporting on the State of. Ireland's
Environment and Indicator Reports). Regulating Ireland's Greenhouse
Gas Emissions.
http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/other/corporate/EPA_AnnualReport_2014_We
b.pdf
Ireland. We are committed to protecting people and the environment from the
harmful and coastal waters of Ireland and ground waters, measuring water
local government , periodic reporting on the State of Ireland's . requirement to
have robust and secure financial provisions
http://www.epa.ie/ebooks/soe2016/files/assets/common/downloads/EPA%20-
%20Ireland.pdf
Department's website; www.agriculture.gov.ie ... are the economic
backbone of rural Ireland and provide the raw .... Tax Implications of
the Basic Payment Scheme ... The on-line Financial
https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/publications/2016/SchemesSer
viceswithoutimages160216.pdf
Economic Analysis of Water Use in Ireland - Water
Framework ...
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government ...
Document Economic Analysis of Water Use in Ireland ...... projected
costs of water services through to 2015, estimated via simple ......
which we would not be aware. ... from a combination of Motor Tax net
of local authority expenses
http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/35_Economics/Economic%20Analysis%20of
%20Water%20use.pdf
Developments on the Irish government bond market ... of the EU/IMF

financial assistance programme for Ireland. ... long-term unemployed;
(ii) putting water service provision on a ..... thereafter; November data
is through 7 November only. ...... motor and vehicle registration tax
(EUR 150 million)
http://www.neci.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Euroleaks-doc-Jan-2013-
12.pdf
The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland

(Established in Ireland by Charter in 1783 and having
limited liability with registered no. C-1)
Proposed Institutional Placing of 326,797,386 units of
Placing Stock at
E1.53 per unit of Placing Stock and the NPRFC Placing of
575,555,556 units of Ordinary Stock at
E1.80 per unit of Ordinary Stock (payable in respect of the
NPRFC by the conversion of the 2009 Preference Stock)
Proposed Rights Issue of Rights Issue Stock at a Rights
Issue Price to be determined
in advance of the Extraordinary General Court (payable in
respect of the NPRFC
Rights Issue Undertaking by the conversion of the 2009
Preference Stock)
Admission to trading of 184,394,378 units of NPRFC
Coupon Ordinary Stock
Citi
Financial Advisers and Transaction Co-ordinators Credit
Suisse IBI Corporate Finance
Joint Bookrunners and Underwriters
Credit Suisse Davy Deutsche Bank UBS
Joint Sponsors and Brokers Davy UBS
Your attention is drawn in particular to the letter from the
Governor of Bank of Ireland which is set out in Part VII
(Letter from the Governor of Bank of Ireland) of this
Prospectus. You should read the whole of this Prospectus
and any documents incorporated herein by reference (a
list is set out in paragraph 21 (Documents incorporated by
reference) of Part XVIII (Additional Information) of this
Prospectus). Qualifying Stockholders and any other
persons contemplating a purchase of Nil Paid Rights, Fully
Paid Rights, Rights Issue Stock or Placing Stock should
review the risk factors set out in Part II (Risk Factors) of
this Prospectus for a discussion of certain factors that
should be considered when deciding on what action to
take in relation to the Rights Issue and the Institutional
Placing and deciding whether or not to purchase Nil Paid
Rights, Fully Paid Rights, Rights Issue Stock or Placing
Stock.
The latest time and date for receipt of completed
Provisional Allotment Letters and payment in full under the
Rights Issue and settlement of relevant CREST instructions
(as appropriate) is 11.00 a.m. (Irish time) on 8 June 2010.
The procedure for application and payment is set out in
Part IX (Terms and Conditions of the Rights Issue) of this
Prospectus and, for Qualifying Non-CREST Stockholders
only, will also be set out in the Provisional Allotment
Letter.
The distribution of this Prospectus or any documents
issued by Bank of Ireland in connection with the Rights
Issue, the Placing and/or the transfer of and/or Admission
of (as the case may be) the Nil Paid Rights, the Fully Paid
Rights, the Rights Issue Stock, the Placing Stock, the
Ordinary Stock issued pursuant to the NPRFC Placing and
the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock into jurisdictions other
than Ireland and the United Kingdom may be restricted by
law and therefore persons into whose possession this
Prospectus or any other documents issued by the Bank in
connection with the Rights Issue, the Placing and/or the
transfer of and/or Admission of (as the case may be) the
Nil Paid Rights, the Fully Paid Rights, the Rights Issue
Stock, the Placing Stock, the Ordinary Stock issued
pursuant to the NPRFC Placing or the NPRFC Coupon
Ordinary Stock comes should inform themselves about
and observe such restrictions. Any failure to comply with
any such restrictions may constitute a violation of the
securities laws or regulations of such jurisdictions. In
particular, subject to certain exceptions, this Prospectus or
any other documents issued by the Bank in connection
with the Rights Issue or the Placing and/or the transfer of
and/or Admission of (as the case may be) the Nil Paid
Rights, the Fully Paid Rights, the Rights Issue Stock, the
Placing Stock, the Ordinary Stock issued pursuant to the
NPRFC Placing or the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock
should not be distributed, forwarded to or transmitted in
any Excluded Territories including the United States. The
Nil Paid Rights, the Fully Paid Rights, the Provisional
Allotment Letters, and/or the Rights Issue Stock are not
transferable, except in accordance with, and the
distribution of this Prospectus or any other documents
issued by the Bank in connection with the Proposals is
subject to, the restrictions set out in paragraph 2.5 of Part
IX (Terms and Conditions of the Rights Issue) of this
Prospectus.
All Overseas Stockholders and any person (including,
without limitation, agents, custodians, nominees or
trustees) who has a contractual or other legal obligation to
forward this Prospectus or any documents issued by Bank
of Ireland in connection with the Rights Issue or the
Placing and/or the transfer of and/or Admission of (as the
case may be) the Nil Paid Rights, the Fully Paid Rights, the
Rights Issue Stock, the Placing Stock, the Ordinary Stock
issued pursuant to the NPRFC Placing and the NPRFC
Coupon Ordinary Stock if and when received, to a
jurisdiction outside Ireland and the United Kingdom should
read paragraph 2.5 of Part IX (Terms and Conditions of the
Rights Issue) of this Prospectus.
This Prospectus does not constitute or form part of any
offer or invitation to purchase, otherwise acquire,
subscribe for, sell, otherwise dispose of or issue, or any
solicitation of any offer to sell, otherwise dispose of, issue,
purchase, otherwise acquire or subscribe for, any security,
in any jurisdiction in which such an offer, an invitation or a
solicitation is unlawful.
This Prospectus has been drawn up in accordance with
Part 5 of the Investment Funds, Companies and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2005 of Ireland, the
Prospectus Regulations, and the EU Prospectus
Regulations. This Prospectus has been approved by the
Financial Regulator, as competent authority under the
Prospectus Directive 2003/71/EC. The Financial Regulator
only approves this Prospectus as meeting the
requirements imposed under Irish and EU law pursuant to
the Prospectus Directive 2003/71/EC. Such approval
relates only to Placing Stock, Rights Issue Stock, Nil Paid
Rights, Fully Paid Rights, Ordinary Stock issued pursuant to
the NPRFC Placing and the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock
which are to be admitted to trading on the regulated
market of the Irish Stock Exchange or other regulated
markets for the purposes of Directive 2004/39/EC or which
are to be offered to the public in any EU member state of
the European Economic Area. This Prospectus has been
made available to the public in Ireland in accordance with
Part 8 of the Prospectus Regulations by the same being
made available, free of charge, in electronic form on the
Banks website www.bankofireland.com and in printed
format until 14 June (being the date of Admission of the
Rights Issue Stock) at the Banks registered office and at
the registered offices of the Underwriters, details of which
are set out in Part VI (Directors, Group Secretary,
Registered Office and Advisers) of this Prospectus. The
Bank has requested that the Financial Regulator provides a
certificate of approval and a copy of this Prospectus to the
competent authority, for the purposes of the Prospectus
Directive 2003/71/EC, in the United Kingdom.
The Ordinary Stock is listed on the Official Lists and is
traded on the regulated markets for listed securities of the
Irish Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange.
Application will be made to the Irish Stock Exchange and
the UK Listing Authority for up to a maximum of
19,753,818,545 units of Placing Stock, Rights Issue Stock,
Nil Paid Rights, Fully Paid Rights, and Ordinary Stock
issued pursuant to the NPRFC Placing to be admitted to
the Official Lists and application will be made to the Irish
Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange for such
Placing Stock, Rights Issue Stock, Nil Paid Rights, Fully Paid
Rights, Ordinary Stock issued pursuant to the NPRFC
Placing to be admitted to trading on their respective
regulated markets for listed securities. It is expected that
such admission will become effective in respect of and
that dealings will commence in, the Placing Stock, the
Rights Issue Stock, Nil Paid Rights and Ordinary Stock
issued pursuant to the NPRFC Placing at 8.00 a.m. (Irish
time) on 20 May 2010. Application has been made to the
Irish Stock Exchange and the UK Listing Authority for the
NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock to be admitted to the
Official Lists and application has been made to the Irish
Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange for the
NPRFC Coupon Stock to be admitted to trading on their
respective regulated markets for listed securities. It is
expected that such admission will become effective in
respect of, and that dealings will be capable of
commencing in, the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock at 8.00
a.m. (Irish time) on 27 April 2010.
Investors should only rely on the information contained in
this Prospectus and the documents incorporated herein by
reference. No person has been authorised to give any
information or make any representations other than those
contained in this Prospectus and, if given or made, such
information or representations must not be relied upon as
having been so authorised. Subject to Irish Prospectus
Law, the Prospectus Regulations, the Listing Rules, Market
Abuse Regulations and the Transparency Regulations,
neither the publication of this Prospectus nor any
acquisition of any security made under it shall, in any
circumstances, create any implication that there has been
no change in the affairs of the Group since the date of this
Prospectus or that the information in it and incorporated
by reference herein is correct as of any subsequent date.
The Bank will comply with its obligation to publish a
supplementary prospectus containing further updated
information required by law or by any regulatory authority
but assumes no further obligation to publish additional
information, subject to Irish Prospectus Law, the
Prospectus Regulations, the Listing Rules, Market Abuse
Regulations and the Transparency Regulations.
This Prospectus is intended for use in connection with
offers and sales and/or admission to trading, as the case
may be, of the Nil Paid Rights, the Fully Paid Rights, the
Provisional Allotment Letters, the Rights Issue Stock, the
Placing Stock, Ordinary Stock issued pursuant to the
NPRFC Placing and the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock
outside the United States and any other Excluded Territory
and must not be sent or given to any person within the
United States or any other Excluded Territory. The Nil Paid
Rights, the Fully Paid Rights, the Provisional Allotment
Letters, the Rights Issue Stock, the Placing Stock, the
the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock have not been and will
not be registered under the US Securities Act or under any
securities laws of any state or other jurisdiction of the
United States, or any other Excluded Territory, and may
not be offered, sold, taken up, exercised, resold,
renounced, transferred or delivered, directly or indirectly,
within the United States or any other Excluded Territory,
except pursuant to an applicable exemption from the
registration requirements of the US Securities Act and in
compliance with any applicable securities laws of any
state or other jurisdiction of the United States or any other
Excluded Territory. There will be no public offer in any
Excluded Territory.
Bank of Ireland and the Directors whose names and
positions are set out in Part VI (Directors, Group Secretary,
Registered Office and Advisers) of this Prospectus, accept
responsibility for the information contained in this
Prospectus and to the best of the knowledge and belief of
the Bank and the Directors (who have taken all reasonable
care to ensure that such is the case), the
2
information contained in this Prospectus is in accordance
with the facts and does not omit anything likely to affect
the import of such information.
None of the Minister for Finance, the Department of
Finance, the Irish Government, the NTMA, the NPRFC or
any person controlled by or controlling any such person, or
any entity or agency of or related to the State, or any
director, officer, official, employee or adviser of any such
person (each such person, a Relevant Person) accepts
any responsibility for the contents of, or makes any
representation or warranty as to the accuracy,
completeness or fairness of any information in, this
Prospectus or any document referred to in this Prospectus
or any supplement or amendment thereto (each a
Transaction Document). Each Relevant Person expressly
disclaims any liability whatsoever for any loss howsoever
arising from, or in reliance upon, the whole or any part of
the contents of any Transaction Document. No Relevant
Person has authorised or will authorise the contents of any
Transaction Document, or has recommended or endorsed
the merits of the offering of securities or any other course
of action contemplated by any Transaction Document.
Citigroup Global Markets U.K. Equity Limited (Citi) (which
is authorised and regulated in the United Kingdom by the
Financial Services Authority) is acting exclusively for the
Bank as a Joint Bookrunner and Underwriter and no one
else in relation to the Placing, the Rights Issue and
Admission of the Placing Stock, the Rights Issue Stock,
the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock and will not regard any
other person (including the recipients of this Prospectus)
as a client in relation to the Placing, the Rights Issue, or
the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock and will not be
responsible to anyone other than the Bank for providing
the protections afforded to its customers or for providing
advice in relation to the Placing, the Rights Issue, or
the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock or any other matters
referred to in this Prospectus. Apart from the
responsibilities and liabilities, if any, which may be
imposed by the Financial Regulator, the Financial Services
Authority, or the FSMA, Citi makes no representation,
express or implied, with respect to the accuracy,
verification or completeness of any information contained
in this Prospectus and accepts no responsibility for, and
does not authorise, the contents of this Prospectus or its
publication, including without limitation under section 41
of the Investment Funds, Companies and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 2005 or Regulation 31 of the Prospectus
Regulations, or any other statement made or purported to
be made by the Bank or Citi, or on behalf of either of
them, in connection with the Placing, the Rights Issue or
the Admission of the Placing Stock, the Rights Issue Stock,
the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock or any of the other
arrangements described in this Prospectus, and
accordingly disclaims all and any liability whatsoever
whether arising out of tort, contract or otherwise which it
might otherwise have to any person in respect of this
Prospectus or any other statement.
Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited (which is
authorised and regulated in the United Kingdom by the
Financial Services Authority) is acting exclusively for the
Bank as a Joint Bookrunner, Underwriter, joint financial
adviser and Transaction Co-ordinator and no one else in
relation to the Placing, the Rights Issue and Admission of
the Placing Stock, the Rights Issue Stock, Ordinary Stock
Coupon Ordinary Stock and will not regard any other
person (including the recipients of this Prospectus) as a
client in relation to the Placing, the Rights Issue, or
advice in relation to the Placing, the Rights Issue, or
Authority, or the FSMA, Credit Suisse Securities (Europe)
Limited makes no representation, express or implied, with
respect to the accuracy, verification or completeness of
any information contained in this Prospectus and accepts
no responsibility for, and does not authorise, the contents
of this Prospectus or its publication, including without
limitation under section 41 of the Investment Funds,
Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2005 or
Regulation 31 of the Prospectus Regulations, or any other
statement made or purported to be made by the Bank or
Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited, or on behalf of
either of them, in connection with the Placing, the Rights
Issue or the Admission of the Placing Stock, the Rights
Issue Stock, Ordinary Stock issued pursuant to the NPRFC
Placing and the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock, or any of
the other arrangements described in this Prospectus, and
Davy (which is regulated in Ireland by the Financial
Regulator) is acting exclusively for the Bank, as a Joint
Bookrunner, Underwriter, Joint Sponsor and Broker and no
one else in relation to the Placing, the Rights Issue and
as a client in relation to the Placing, the Rights Issue or
advice in relation to the Placing, the Rights Issue or
Authority, or the FSMA, Davy makes no representation,
in this Prospectus and accepts no responsibility for, and
Provisions Act 2005, or Regulation 31 of the Prospectus
Regulations or any
3
other statement made or purported to be made by the
Bank or Davy, or on behalf of either of them, in connection
with the Placing, the Rights Issue or the Admission of the
Placing Stock, the Rights Issue Stock, Ordinary Stock
Coupon Ordinary Stock or any of the other arrangements
described in this Prospectus, and accordingly disclaims all
and any liability whatsoever whether arising out of tort,
contract or otherwise which it might otherwise have to any
person in respect of this Prospectus or any other
statement.
Deutsche Bank AG (which is authorised under German
banking law (competent authority: BaFin Federal
Financial Supervisory Authority) and authorised and
subject to limited regulation by the Financial Services
Authority) is acting exclusively for the Bank as a Joint
Bookrunner and Underwriter and no one else in relation to
the Placing, the Rights Issue and Admission of the Placing
Stock, the Rights Issue Stock, Ordinary Stock issued
pursuant to the NPRFC Placing and the NPRFC Coupon
Ordinary Stock and will not regard any other person
(including the recipients of this Prospectus) as a client in
relation to the Placing, the Rights Issue or Admission of
the Placing Stock, the Rights Issue Stock, Ordinary Stock
Coupon Ordinary Stock and will not be responsible to
anyone other than the Bank for providing the protections
afforded to its customers or for providing advice in relation
to the Placing, the Rights Issue or Admission of the Placing
Ordinary Stock or any other matters referred to in this
Prospectus. Apart from the responsibilities and liabilities, if
any, which may be imposed by the Financial Regulator,
the Financial Services Authority or the FSMA, Deutsche
Bank makes no representation, express or implied, with
respect to the accuracy, verification or completeness of
any information contained in this Prospectus and accepts
no responsibility for, and does not authorise, the contents
of this Prospectus or its publication, including without
Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2005 or
Regulation 31 of the Prospectus Regulations, or any other
Deutsche Bank, or on behalf of either of them, in
connection with the Placing, the Rights Issue or the
the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock, or any of the other
IBI Corporate Finance, a subsidiary of the Bank, (which is
regulated in Ireland by the Financial Regulator) is acting
exclusively for the Bank as a joint financial adviser and
Transaction Co-ordinator and no one else in relation to the
Placing, the Rights Issue and Admission of the Placing
Ordinary Stock, and will not regard any other person
(including the recipients of this Prospectus) as a client in
relation to the Placing, the Rights Issue or the Admission
of the Placing Stock, the Rights Issue Stock, Ordinary
Stock issued pursuant to the NPRFC Placing and the
NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock and will not be responsible
to anyone other than the Bank for providing the
protections afforded to its customers or for providing
imposed by the Financial Regulator, IBI Corporate Finance
makes no representation, express or implied, with respect
to the accuracy, verification or completeness of any
information contained in this Prospectus and accepts no
responsibility for, and does not authorise, the contents of
this Prospectus or its publication, including without
Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2005, or
Regulation 31 of the Prospectus Regulations or any other
IBI Corporate Finance, or on behalf of either of them, in
connection with the Placing, the Rights Issue or the
UBS Investment Bank (UBS) (which is authorised and
regulated in the United Kingdom by the Financial Services
Authority) is acting exclusively for the Bank as a Joint
Bookrunner, Underwriter, Joint Sponsor and Broker and no
one else in relation to the Placing, the Rights Issue and
as a client in relation to the Placing, the Rights Issue or
Authority or the FSMA, UBS makes no representation,
in this Prospectus and accepts no responsibility for and
Provisions Act 2005 or Regulation 31 of the Prospectus
Regulations, or any other statement made or purported to
be made by the Bank or UBS, or on behalf of either of
them, in connection with the Placing, the Rights Issue or
the Admission of the Placing Stock, the Rights Issue Stock,
4
The Underwriters may, in accordance with applicable legal
and regulatory provisions and subject to the Underwriting
Agreement, engage in transactions in relation to the Nil
Paid Rights, the Fully Paid Rights, the Provisional Allotment
Letters or the units of Placing Stock, Rights Issue Stock,
Ordinary Stock issued pursuant to the NPRFC Placing or
the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock and/or related
instruments for their own account for the purpose of
hedging their underwriting exposure or otherwise. Except
as required by applicable law or regulation, the
Underwriters do not propose to make any public disclosure
in relation to such transactions.
During the distribution of Placing Stock, Rights Issue Stock
and Ordinary Stock (including in the form of American
Depositary Shares, or ADSs), certain affiliates of the Bank
have engaged and intend to continue to engage in various
dealing activities involving units of Ordinary Stock
(including in the form of ADSs). Among other things, Bank
affiliates (1) have purchased and sold and intend to
continue to purchase and sell units of the Ordinary Stock
and derivatives on the Ordinary Stock as part of their
ordinary asset management activities; (2) have arranged
and intend to continue to arrange agency lending
transactions of units of Ordinary Stock and ADSs; (3) have
marketed and sold and intend to continue to market and
sell to customers funds, portfolios and accounts which
include units of Ordinary Stock or ADSs; (4) have advised
and intend to continue to advise customers to invest in
funds, indices or baskets including the Ordinary Stock or
ADSs; (5) have engaged and intend to continue to engage
in transactions in units of the Ordinary Stock as trustees
and/or personal representatives of trusts and estates; and
(6) have marketed and sold and intend to continue to
market and sell structured products referring to indices or
baskets including the Ordinary Stock or ADSs. All of these
activities have occurred and are expected to continue to
occur in Ireland, the United Kingdom and elsewhere
outside the United States.
None of the Nil Paid Rights, the Fully Paid Rights, the
Provisional Allotment Letters or the units of Placing Stock,
Rights Issue Stock, Ordinary Stock issued pursuant to the
NPRFC Placing or the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock issued
in connection with the Proposals constitute covered
liabilities or eligible liabilities for the purposes of the
CIFS Guarantee Scheme or the ELG Scheme respectively.
Notice to EEA investors
In relation to each member state of the European
Economic Area which has implemented the Prospectus
Directive (each a Relevant Member State) except for
Ireland and the United Kingdom with effect from and
including the date on which the Prospectus Directive was
implemented in that Relevant Member State (the
Relevant Implementation Date), there may not have
been made and may not be made an offer of Placing
Stock, Rights Issue Stock, Nil Paid Rights, Fully Paid Rights,
NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock to the public in that
Relevant Member State prior to the publication of a
prospectus in relation to the Placing Stock, Rights Issue
Stock, Nil Paid Rights, Fully Paid Rights, Ordinary Stock
issued pursuant to the NPRFC Placing or NPRFC Coupon
Ordinary Stock which has been approved by the Financial
Regulator and notified to the competent authority in that
Relevant Member State, all in accordance with the
Prospectus Directive, except that there may, with effect
from and including the Relevant Implementation Date, be
made an offer of Placing Stock, Rights Issue Stock, Nil Paid
the NPRFC Placing or NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock to the
public in that Relevant Member State at any time:
1. (a) to legal entities which are authorised or
regulated to operate in the financial markets or, if not so
authorised or regulated, whose corporate purpose is solely
to invest in securities;
2. (b) to any legal entity which has two or more of (1)
an average of at least 250 employees during the last
financial year; (2) a total balance sheet of more than
A43,000,000 and (3) an annual net turnover of more than
A50,000,000 as shown in its last annual or consolidated
accounts; or
3. (c) in any other circumstances falling within Article
3(2) of the Prospectus Directive, provided that no such
offer of Placing Stock, Rights Issue Stock, Nil Paid Rights or
Fully Paid Rights shall result in a requirement for the
publication by the Bank of a prospectus pursuant to Article
3 of the Prospectus Directive.
For the purposes of this provision, the expression an offer
of shares to the public in relation to any Placing Stock,
Rights Issue Stock, Nil Paid Rights, Fully Paid Rights,
NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock in any Relevant Member
State means the communication in any form and by any
means of sufficient information on the terms of the offer
and the Placing Stock, Rights Issue Stock, Nil Paid Rights,
Fully Paid Rights, Ordinary Stock issued pursuant to the
NPRFC Placing and NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock to be
offered so as to enable an investor to decide to purchase
or subscribe Placing Stock, Rights Issue Stock, Nil Paid
the NPRFC Placing or NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock, as
the same may be varied in that Member State by any
measure implementing the Prospectus Directive in that
Member State.
Nothing contained in this Prospectus is intended to
constitute investment, legal, tax, accounting or other
professional advice. This Prospectus is for your information
only and nothing in this Prospectus is intended to endorse
or recommend a particular course of action. You should
consult with an appropriate professional for specific advice
rendered on the basis of your situation.
The Placing Stock, Rights Issue Stock, Nil Paid Rights, Fully
Paid Rights, the Provisional Allotment Letters, Ordinary
NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock have not been registered
under the US Securities Act or any securities laws of any
state or other jurisdiction of the United States and may not
be offered, sold, vested, transferred or delivered in or into
the United States except pursuant to an applicable
exemption from the registration requirements of the US
Securities Act and in compliance with any applicable
securities laws of any state or other jurisdiction in the
United States. There
5
will be no public offer of the Placing Stock, Rights Issue
Stock, Nil Paid Rights, Fully Paid Rights, the Provisional
Allotment Letters, Ordinary Stock issued pursuant to the
NPRFC Placing or the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock in the
United States.
The Placing Stock, Rights Issue Stock, Nil Paid Rights, Fully
Paid Rights, the Provisional Allotment Letters, Ordinary
NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock have not been approved or
disapproved by the SEC, any state securities commission
in the United States or any other US regulatory authority,
nor have any of the foregoing authorities passed upon or
endorsed the merits of the offering of Placing Stock, Rights
Issue Stock, Nil Paid Rights, Fully Paid Rights, the
Provisional Allotment Letters, Ordinary Stock issued
pursuant to the NPRFC Placing or the NPRFC Coupon
Ordinary Stock or the accuracy or adequacy of this
Prospectus. Any representation to the contrary is a
criminal offence in the United States. The Placing Stock,
Rights Issue Stock, Nil Paid Rights, Fully Paid Rights, the
Provisional Allotment Letters, Ordinary Stock issued
Ordinary Stock offered outside the United States are being
offered in reliance on Regulation S under the US Securities
Act. In addition, until 40 days after the commencement of
the Rights Issue and Placing, an offer, sale or transfer of
Placing Stock, Rights Issue Stock, Nil Paid Rights, Fully Paid
Rights, the Provisional Allotment Letters, Ordinary Stock
Coupon Ordinary Stock within the United States by a
dealer (whether or not participating in the Rights Issue
and Placing) may violate the registration requirements of
the US Securities Act.
SUBJECT TO CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, THE RIGHTS ISSUE,
NPRFC PLACING AND INSTITUTIONAL PLACING DESCRIBED
IN THIS PROSPECTUS ARE NOT BEING MADE TO
STOCKHOLDERS OR INVESTORS IN THE UNITED STATES OR
ANY OTHER EXCLUDED TERRITORY AND NO DOCUMENTS
ISSUED BY BANK OF IRELAND IN CONNECTION WITH THE
RIGHTS ISSUE AND INSTITUTIONAL PLACING IS OR
CONSTITUTES AN INVITATION OR OFFER OF SECURITIES
FOR SUBSCRIPTION, SALE OR PURCHASE TO ANY PERSON
WITH A REGISTERED ADDRESS, OR WHO IS RESIDENT OR
LOCATED, IN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY OTHER
EXCLUDED TERRITORY.
This Prospectus is dated 26 April 2010
Where a claim relating to the information contained in this

Prospectus is brought before a court, the plaintiff might,
under the national legislation of EEA member states, have
to bear the cost of translating this Prospectus before the
legal proceedings are initiated. Civil liability attaches to
those persons responsible under law for the contents of
this Prospectus but only if this summary is misleading,
inaccurate or inconsistent when read together with the
other parts of the Prospectus.
1. Introduction
Today, Bank of Ireland announced the Proposals to take
significant steps to strengthen further its balance sheet
following key developments in recent weeks. Under the
Proposals, the Bank will, subject to Stockholder approval,
increase Equity Tier 1 Capital by a minimum of A2.8 billion
(after expenses and the Warrant Cancellation) by way of
the Institutional Placing, the NPRFC Placing, the Rights
Issue (including the NPRFC Rights Issue Undertaking) and
the Debt for Equity Offers. The proceeds of the
Institutional Placing and the Rights Issue, with the
exception of the amount covered by the NPRFC Rights
Issue Undertaking, will be underwritten pursuant to the
Underwriting Agreement. In addition, as part of the
Proposals, the Warrants held by the NPRFC will be
cancelled in return for the payment of A491 million by the
Bank to the NPRFC, and the non-cumulative dividend on
the NPRFCs remaining 2009 Preference Stock will be
increased.
The Directors believe that the Group has made significant
progress in recent weeks to clarify its investment case.
This has been achieved through (i) the Groups transfer of
A1.9 billion of assets, and confirmation of its expected
transfer of A10.5 billion of additional assets (including
accrued interest and related derivatives) before the end of
2010, to NAMA, (ii) internal as well as independent
confirmation of the outlook for impairment charges on the
Groups non-NAMA bound loans and advances to
customers, (iii) greater clarity on the EU Restructuring
Plan, (iv) the Financial Regulators assessment of the
Groups capital requirements and (v) completion of a
review of the Groups defined benefit pension schemes.
2. Background to the Proposals
Government and Regulatory Initiatives
As a result of the global economic downturn and financial
crisis that continued during the latter part of 2008 and the
early part of 2009 and the relatively more severe
economic conditions in Ireland during that time and
thereafter, a number of measures were implemented by
the Irish Government in order to enhance the availability
of liquidity and improve access to funding for the Group
and other systemically important financial institutions in
Ireland. These measures included (i) the CIFS Guarantee
Scheme, which was introduced in September 2008 and
guarantees certain liabilities of covered institutions,
including the Group, until 29 September 2010; (ii) an
investment in the Bank by the NPRFC on 31 March 2009 of
A3.5 billion in the form of the 2009 Preference Stock and
the Warrants; (iii) the ELG Scheme, introduced on 9
December 2009 which guarantees for a maturity period of
up to five years certain debt securities issued and deposits
received during an Issuance Window (which is currently
scheduled to expire on 29 September 2010); and (iv) the
establishment of NAMA on 21 December 2009, which is
acquiring land and development loans and certain
associated loans from Participating Institutions, including
the Bank.
On 30 March 2010, the Financial Regulator published the
results of its review of the capital requirements of certain
institutions in the Irish banking sector, including the
Group, which have to be met by 31 December 2010. New
capital levels were set as a long term solution to help
ensure that Irish banks move to a strong capital position to
speed up their recovery and that of the Irish economy.
The Group has been involved in detailed negotiations,
through the Department of Finance, with the European
Commission in relation to the terms of the EU
Restructuring Plan in the context of a review resulting from
the State aid which has been received by the Group.
8
Recent Economic Environment in Ireland and the UK
The Directors believe that the economic environments in
the Groups key operating geographies (being Ireland and
the UK) have recently shown signs of stabilisation after the
substantial fall in economic output from early in 2008.
3. The Proposals
The Group expects to increase Equity Tier 1 Capital by not
less than A2.8 billion (after expenses and the Warrant
Cancellation) through the implementation of the
Institutional Placing, the NPRFC Placing, the Rights Issue
(including the NPRFC Rights Issue Undertaking), and the
Debt for Equity Offers, as further described below. The
purpose of the Proposals is to raise Equity Tier 1 Capital
and as such any net cash proceeds will be used in the day-
to-day operations of the Bank and also a portion of the
proceeds will be used to meet the requirements of the
Debt for Equity Offers and the Warrant Cancellation. Over
the medium term, and subject to regulatory approval, the
Directors may seek to apply a portion of the proceeds to
redeem some, or all, of the outstanding 2009 Preference
Stock provided they are satisfied that the Group can
maintain appropriate capital ratios and they deem such
action to be in Stockholders interests as a whole. The
Proposals are subject to Stockholder approval and consist
of:
Placing: The Institutional Placing and NPRFC Placing will
raise A1,536 million in Equity Tier 1 Capital (gross of
expenses).
Institutional Placing: The Institutional Placing will be
underwritten pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement,
subject to conditions, including Admission of the Placing
Stock and the approval of the Resolutions at the EGC. The
Underwriters have agreed to use their reasonable
endeavours to procure Placees for an aggregate of
326,797,386 units of Placing Stock at a price of A1.53 per
unit of Placing Stock issued in the Institutional Placing and
expect to conclude arrangements to conditionally place
the Placing Stock with institutional investors today. The
price at which the Placing Stock will be issued to Placees
represents a 15.0% discount to the Closing Price of A1.80
of the Existing Stock on 23 April 2010. This price has been
determined following a Book Building Process involving
both existing and potential new institutional investors.
NPRFC Placing: Pursuant to the NPRFC Placing, the NPRFC
has agreed to subscribe for 575,555,556 units of Ordinary
Stock at a price of A1.80 per unit of Ordinary Stock. The
consideration for the NPRFCs subscription will be the
conversion of 1,036,000,000 units of 2009 Preference
Stock (at their subscription price of A1.00 per unit of 2009
Preference Stock) to units of Ordinary Stock. The NPRFC
Placing will be conditional upon the commencement of
dealings in the Nil Paid Rights and Fully Paid Rights
pursuant to the Rights Issue. Further detail is included in
paragraph 4 (Government) of this Summary and
paragraph 8 (Material Contracts) of Part XVIII (Additional
Information) of this Prospectus.
Rights Issue: The Rights Issue will raise up to A1,885
million gross in Equity Tier 1 Capital (a portion of the cash
proceeds of which will be due directly to noteholders
electing to receive Ordinary Stock to be allotted in the
Rights Issue on their behalf pursuant to the Debt for
Equity Offers).
The Rights Issue (other than the NPRFC Rights Issue
Undertaking) will be underwritten pursuant to the
Underwriting Agreement, subject to conditions, including
Admission of the Rights Issue Stock (nil paid) and the
approval of the Resolutions at the EGC. The Rights Issue
size and Rights Issue Price at which Qualifying
Stockholders will be invited to subscribe for Rights Issue
Stock will be determined by the Bank and the Joint
Bookrunners in advance of the EGC. The Rights Issue Price
will be equal to the higher of (i) A0.10 per unit of Rights
Issue Stock, and (ii) a price per unit of Rights Issue Stock
which is within the range of 38% to 42% discount to the
TERP. Further information as to how Qualified Stockholders
can participate in the Rights Issue is set out in Part VIII
(Questions and Answers about the Placing and the Rights
Issue) of this Prospectus. The Placing Stock issued
pursuant to the Institutional Placing and the Ordinary
Stock issued as a result of the NPRFC Placing will be
eligible for participation in the Rights Issue.
NPRFC Rights Issue Undertaking. Pursuant to the NPRFC
Rights Issue Undertaking, the NPRFC has agreed, subject
to certain terms and conditions, to take up its entitlement
of up to A685 million of Rights Issue Stock in the Rights
Issue in respect of its holding of the NPRFC Coupon
Ordinary Stock and its holding of Ordinary Stock issued as
a result of the NPRFC Placing (but excluding its other
investment holdings in the Group). Subject to the passing
of the Resolutions and the Rights Issue proceeding, the
consideration for the take up of its Rights in respect of the
NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock and its holding of Ordinary
Stock as a result of the NPRFC Placing will be the
conversion of units of 2009 Preference Stock at their
subscription price of A1.00 each to Ordinary Stock at the
Rights Issue Price. Further detail is included in paragraph 4
(Government) of this Summary and paragraph 8 (Material
Contracts) of Part XVIII (Additional Information) of this
Prospectus.
9

Debt for Equity Offers: Under the Debt for Equity Offers,
holders of certain of the Groups Tier 1 Securities and
Upper Tier 2 Securities with an aggregate nominal value of
approximately A1.49 billion will be given the opportunity
to exchange these securities for (a) Allotment Instruments
(which will automatically convert into Conversion Ordinary
Stock on the Conversion Date); or (b) through a settlement
procedure more fully described in paragraph 5 (Debt for
Equity Offers) of the Appendix to Part VII (Letter from the
Governor of Bank of Ireland) of this Prospectus, cash
proceeds from the allotment of Ordinary Stock in the
Rights Issue on behalf of such holders; or (c) a
combination thereof. The tender prices will represent a
discount of up to 42.0% to the nominal value of the
existing Tier 1 Securities and Upper Tier 2 Securities
exchanged by these security holders. The increase in
Equity Tier 1 Capital resulting from the combination of the
Rights Issue and the Debt for Equity Offers will be no less
than A1,885 million. A capital gain, which will increase the
Groups Equity Tier 1 Capital, will be generated by the
difference between the nominal value of the Tier 1
Securities and Upper Tier 2 Securities exchanged and the
value of the consideration paid. The actual size of the
Rights Issue (including the NPRFC Rights Issue
Undertaking) will be reduced by the capital gain generated
by the Debt for Equity Offers, prior to the Early US Debt for
Equity Offers Expiration Date up to a maximum amount of
A100 million, and the aggregate principal amount of
Allotment Instruments to be issued to electing noteholders
in the Debt for Equity Offers of up to A200 million.
Warrant Cancellation: The Warrants held by the NPRFC
will, simultaneous with the NPRFC Placing, be cancelled in
return for the payment of A491 million in cash by the Bank
to the NPRFC.
Government
4.
Government Transaction
Through the NPRFC Investment, the NPRFC Placing,
assuming it is implemented, NAMA and the participation in
the Government Guarantee Schemes, the Bank has a
multifaceted and important relationship with the
Government and certain associated entities, in particular
the Department of Finance, the NPRFC and NAMA. In
particular, as at 23 April 2010, the Irish Government,
through the NPRFC, held 15.73% of the Banks Existing
Stock. In addition, as at the date of this Prospectus, the
NPRFC holds the Warrants to subscribe for additional
Ordinary Stock. The Proposals include the implementation
of the Government Transaction, which includes the NPRFC
Placing, the NPRFC Rights Issue Undertaking, the Warrant
Cancellation, the amendment of the dividend and voting
rights attaching to the NPRFCs 2009 Preference Stock,
and a number of commitments to promote the availability
of credit and the development of the Irish economy.
NPRFC Placing
Pursuant to the NPRFC Placing, the NPRFC has agreed to
subscribe for 575,555,556 units of Ordinary Stock at a
price of A1.80 per unit. This will be effected by way of the
conversion of 1,036,000,000 units of 2009 Preference
Stock (at their subscription price of A1.00 per unit of 2009
Preference Stock) to units of Ordinary Stock. In
consideration for the NPRFC Placing, the Bank has agreed
to pay to the NPRFC a fee equal to 1% of the subscription
price for all units of 2009 Preference Stock converted
pursuant to the NPRFC Placing (the NPRFC Placing Fee). In
addition the Bank will pay a Transaction Fee of A22 million
at the closing of the NPRFC Placing. The NPRFC Placing will
be conditional upon the commencement of dealings in the
Nil Paid Rights and Fully Paid Rights pursuant to the Rights
Issue.
NPRFC Rights Issue Undertaking
Pursuant to the NPRFC Rights Issue Undertaking, the
NPRFC has agreed, subject to certain terms and
conditions, to fully take up its entitlement of Rights Issue
Stock, by virtue of its holding of the NPRFC Coupon
Ordinary Stock and its holding of Ordinary Stock as a
result of the NPRFC Placing.
Subject to the passing of the Resolutions and the Rights
Issue proceeding, this will be effected by way of the
conversion of such number of units of the 2009 Preference
Stock held by the NPRFC to units of Ordinary Stock, based
on the subscription price of the 2009 Preference Stock of
A1.00 each, as would be equal to the cash amount which
the NPRFC would be obliged to pay to the Bank in the
event it was to pay cash to take up its full entitlement
under the Rights Issue.
Conditional upon the NPRFC Placing and completion of the
matters contemplated by the NPRFC Rights Issue
Undertaking, and in consideration for the NPRFC Rights
Issue Undertaking, the Bank has also agreed to pay to the
NPRFC the NPRFC Commitment Commission, which will be
calculated on the same basis as the commission being
paid to the Underwriters in respect of their participation in
the underwriting of the Rights Issue.
10
Warrant Cancellation
In addition, the Warrants held by the NPRFC to subscribe
for 334,737,148 units of Ordinary Stock will be cancelled
in return for payment of A491 million in cash by the Bank
to the NPRFC. As such, if the Proposals are approved and
implemented, the NPRFC will cease to hold the Warrants
and the subscription rights pursuant to the Warrants.
Amendment of the NPRFCs dividend and voting rights
As part of the Government Transaction and in connection
with the NPRFC Placing and the NPRFC Rights Issue
Undertaking, and conditional on the passing of the
Resolutions, the rights attaching to the 2009 Preference
Stock will be amended to increase the non-cumulative
dividend to a fixed rate of 10.25% (from 8% currently) of
the issue price per annum, payable annually in arrears at
the discretion of the Bank. This reflects the agreement
reached by the Bank and the NPRFC in respect of the
Government Transaction overall.
In addition, if the Government Transaction is implemented,
certain characteristics and restrictions of the NPRFCs
voting rights attaching to the 2009 Preference Stock and
any Ordinary Stock issued in lieu of cash dividends
(including the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock) or issued
upon the exercise of the Warrants will be modified.
Other Commitments Pursuant to the Government
Transaction Agreement
Under the Government Transaction Agreement, the Bank
has committed to promote the availability of credit and
the development of the Irish economy. Specifically, the
Bank is committed to use all reasonable endeavours to
meet a lending target of A3 billion per annum for new or
increased credit facilities to SMEs in Ireland in each of the
twelve month periods commencing on 1 April 2010 and 1
April 2011. The Bank will produce an SME lending plan to
the Minister for Finance, both by geography and sector, for
each of these twelve month periods to demonstrate the
manner in which it intends to meet this target. In addition,
the Bank has agreed to use all reasonable endeavours to
provide A20 million for seed capital to Enterprise Ireland
supported ventures and A100 million for environmental,
clean energy and innovation projects. The Group is also
required to work with Enterprise Ireland and the Irish
Bankers Federation to develop sectoral expertise in the
modern growth sectors of the Irish economy and to work
with Enterprise Ireland to develop a range of banking
services to meet the needs of Irish SMEs trading
internationally. The Bank has also undertaken to take a
number of steps to develop new credit products in areas
where cashflow, rather than property or assets, is relied on
as the basis for business lending. These various
commitments described above are in addition to those
previously given by the Bank in connection with the NPRFC
Investment and pursuant to the terms of the Subscription
Agreement.
Government Stockholding
If the Government Transaction is implemented as outlined
above, the NPRFC will increase its holding of Ordinary
Stock, but will have its Warrants cancelled and its holding
of 2009 Preference Stock reduced. This would result in the
NPRFC holding up to a maximum of 36% of the enlarged
capital stock following the implementation of the
Proposals (with the NPRFC subscribing fully for its rights in
relation to the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock and the
Ordinary Stock issued pursuant to the NPRFC Placing),
assuming that in addition it fully takes up its Rights in
respect of the units of its other Existing Stock (i.e. the
Ordinary Stock held pursuant to its other investment
activities in addition to the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock)
with no right to purchase additional Ordinary Stock
pursuant to the Warrants. The implementation of the
Proposals would also result in the NPRFCs holding of 2009
Preference Stock falling from the 3,500 million units held
at the date of this Prospectus to a minimum of 1,779
million units and a maximum of 1,888 million units.
NAMA
At the Extraordinary General Court of Bank of Ireland on
12 January 2010, Ordinary Stockholders voted in favour of
Bank of Irelands application to participate in NAMA and in
February 2010, the Minister for Finance confirmed the
Groups designation as a Participating Institution.
Performing and non-performing land and development
loans, together with associated loans (primarily
investment property loans), are being acquired by NAMA
on a phased basis which started on 2 April 2010, with the
largest systemic exposures to the Irish banking system
having been acquired first.
11
The Group expects to transfer to NAMA loans of
approximately A12.2 billion, before impairment provisions,
together with accrued interest and related derivatives. At
31 December 2009, the profile of the loans is shown in the
following table:
Land .........................................
Development ................................... Associated (mainly
investment property) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Republic of Ireland E billion
3.1 2.3 2.3
7.7
UK & Rest of World E billion
1.0 2.1 1.4
4.5
Total E billion
4.1 4.4 3.7
12.2
The loans that are now expected to transfer to NAMA
of approximately A12.2 billion, had impairment provisions
of A2.8 billion at 31 December 2009 which together with
accrued interest and related derivatives of A0.2 billion will
give rise to an expected net transfer of A9.6 billion of Bank
of Ireland Eligible Bank Assets to NAMA.
On 2 April 2010, the Group transferred to NAMA the
Tranche 1 NAMA Assets of A1.9 billion (before impairment
provisions), comprising A0.9 billion of land and
development loans and A1.0 billion of associated loans, for
aggregate consideration of A1.2 billion in Government
guaranteed bonds and non-guaranteed subordinated
bonds.
Applying the level of discount (approximately 36%) on the
disposal of the Tranche 1 NAMA Assets to the portfolio of
A12.2 billion of loans would result in a loss of A4.4 billion
(before impairment provisions of A2.8 billion at 31
December 2009). At the Extraordinary General Court of 12
January 2010, the Group provided guidance that we
believe that the discount to book value that we will
receive in payment for these loans by NAMA should not be
greater than A4.8 billion representing a 30% discount
on the Ministers estimate of A16 billion total loan book
value of loans to be transferred.
While the quantum of loans expected to transfer, the mix
of those loans and the discount expected on those loans
has changed since the Extraordinary General Court on 12
January 2010, the Group believes that the aggregate euro
value of the discount of A4.4 billion on the total portfolio of
Bank of Ireland Eligible Bank Assets will be within the
guidance provided of A4.4 billion at the Extraordinary
General Court of the Bank on 12 January 2010.
However, it should be noted that the Group is currently
unable to accurately quantify the ultimate expected loss
on the transfer of all the Bank of Ireland Eligible Bank
Assets to NAMA. The limited number and nature of the
loans involved in the first tranche mean that it may not be
a representative sample of the total portfolio of assets
held for sale to NAMA and consequently the loss on sale is
not necessarily indicative of the loss that is expected to
arise on the entire portfolio of Bank of Ireland Eligible Bank
Assets that will ultimately transfer. Therefore, significant
uncertainties remain as to the final discount which will be
applicable to Bank of Ireland.
In consideration of the transfer of Bank of Ireland Eligible
Bank Assets to NAMA, the Group receives a combination of
Government guaranteed bonds, to be issued by NAMA and
guaranteed by the Minister for Finance (not less than 95%
of the consideration), and non-guaranteed subordinated
bonds (not more than 5% of the consideration). The
Government guaranteed bonds are designed to be
marketable instruments that are capable of being pledged
as funding collateral to debt market investors and to
Monetary Authorities such as the ECB and the Group
expects to be able to exchange such marketable
instruments for cash at minimal cost.
5. Rationale and Key Benefits of the Proposals
Rationale
The Directors believe that given the completion of the
transfer of the Tranche 1 NAMA Assets, the re-affirmation
of the non-NAMA bound loans impairment guidance, the
increased clarity on the EU Restructuring Plan, the clarity
from the Financial Regulator of its requirements for
additional Equity Tier 1 Capital in the Group, the
completion by the Group of a review of its defined benefit
pension schemes and the stabilising economic outlook in
its core Irish market and the UK, where there is some
evidence that economic recovery is already underway, the
Group is now in a position to take significant steps to
strengthen further its capital base through the initiatives
more fully described in paragraph 3 (The Proposals) of this
Summary.
The Groups key business priorities are to (i) support its
customers; (ii) maintain a strong capital position; (iii) fund
its balance sheet effectively; (iv) manage its credit risks;
(v) rigorously manage its costs; and (vi) return to
profitability and achieve profitable growth.
The Directors believe that the Group has the appropriate
strategy to rebuild and grow the Group as its core markets
in Ireland and the UK recover and, consequently, deliver
value for Stockholders.
12
Key Benefits of the Proposals
The Directors believe the Proposals are beneficial to the
Group because they:
will increase Equity Tier 1 Capital by not less than A2.8
billion, net of expenses and the Warrant Cancellation,
which, if the Proposals had been implemented as at 31
December 2009, would have resulted in a pro forma
Equity Tier 1 Capital Ratio of 8.0%, Core Tier 1 Capital
Ratio of 10.1%, a Tier 1 Capital Ratio of 10.5% and Total
Capital Ratio of 13.5% for the Group under Basel II, based
on the assumptions and adjustments set out in Part XV
(Unaudited Pro Forma Financial Information) of this
Prospectus, as compared with a reported Equity Tier 1
Capital Ratio of 5.3%, Core Tier 1 Capital Ratio of 8.9%, a
Tier 1 Capital Ratio of 9.8% and Total Capital Ratio of
13.4% for the Group at 31 December 2009;
will strengthen the Groups capital position, to provide
wholesale funding markets and depositors with increased
confidence in the Group and support a prudent
disengagement from the Government Guarantee Schemes
as market conditions allow, which should enable the Group
to achieve its strategic growth objectives in its core
business portfolios;
should reduce Existing Stockholder dilution by including
a rights issue as a significant part of the capital raising
proposition rather than relying solely on a non pre-emptive
placing that would not be available to Existing
Stockholders; and
have been selected to limit Government ownership of
the Ordinary Stock the net proceeds of the Institutional
Placing and the Rights Issue (excluding the NPRFC Rights
Issue Undertaking) are underwritten by a syndicate of
underwriters, thus ensuring that the maximum
Government ownership of Ordinary Stock arising from the
implementation of the Proposals will not be higher than
36%; and the Proposals additionally include the
cancellation of the NPRFCs Warrants, which will reduce
the potential for the NPRFC to increase its stockholding in
the Bank further following implementation of the
Proposals.
In addition, by strengthening the Groups capital position,
the Proposals will enable the Group to continue to play an
important role in supporting the recovery of the Irish
economy through the continued provision of credit.
Financial Targets
The implementation of the Proposals will place the Group
in a significantly strengthened capital position, which the
Group expects will facilitate the delivery of sustainable
growth and over time build value for Ordinary
Stockholders.
In recent periods, the Group has experienced net interest
margin attrition primarily as a result of the low interest
rate environment, higher cost of wholesale funding and
competition on deposit pricing. This trend is expected to
continue in the short term as the Group increases its
quantum of term funding in pursuit of its strategy to
prudently disengage from the Government Guarantee
Schemes. Margin expansion is a key management priority.
The expected continuation of recent strong lending
margins on new business, increased demand for lending
as economic growth returns, anticipated increases in base
interest rates and the lower wholesale funding costs
expected in the future, are all expected to be positive for
the Groups net interest margin over time. In addition, by
actively re- pricing the existing loan book, by maximising
the margin from non-core portfolios and by re-pricing
deposits, the Group is targeting a net interest margin in
excess of 175 basis points in the year ending 31
December 2013.
Since March 2008, the Group has demonstrated the
scalable nature of its cost base as it refocused on its core
portfolios. The Group will continue to maintain its rigorous
approach to cost management and is implementing a
range of initiatives to further reduce costs. These
initiatives, together with the expected margin expansion
referred to above, are expected to lower the Groups cost
income ratio to below 50% in the year ending 31
December 2013.
The Group has enhanced its approach to credit
management and is rigorously managing all of its credit
risks. It is expected that the impairment charge on non-
NAMA bound loans peaked in 2009 and is expected to
reduce progressively in 2010, 2011 and 2012.
The Proposals are expected to fully address, for the 3 year
period to 2012, the Groups capital requirements as set
out by the Financial Regulator in the Prudential Capital
Assessment Review on 30 March 2010. The Proposals will
strengthen the Groups capital position and are expected
to enable it to maintain an Equity Tier 1 Capital Ratio in
excess of 7%, under Basel II.
Funding the Group is reverting to a more traditional
banking model where it will substantially fund its core loan
portfolios through customer deposits. The Group will
leverage the potential of its extensive retail distribution
platforms both in the Republic of Ireland through its
branch network and internationally through its joint
venture with the UK Post Office, its Business and
Corporate Banking relationship management teams and
its network of
13
treasury offices in Dublin, the UK and the US to attract
deposits to fund asset growth. This more sustainable
funding strategy together with the initiatives to de-lever
the Groups balance sheet are expected to reduce the
Groups loan to deposit ratio to below 125% in the year
ending 31 December 2013.
The achievement of the above financial targets should
allow the Group to deliver a return on equity in the low
teens to mid teens percent in the year ending 31
December 2013.
6. State aid and EU Restructuring Plan
As previously announced, the NPRFC Investment, the
Government Transaction and the Groups participation in
NAMA are the subject of an ongoing review by the
European Commission under EU State aid rules. As part of
this review under State aid rules a restructuring plan was
prepared by the Group and submitted by the Department
of Finance to the European Commission on 30 September
2009. Any such plan is required to contain measures to
address an appropriate level of burden-sharing by the
Group and its Stockholders and noteholders and to limit
any competition distortion resulting from any State aid
received by the Group, as well as an assessment of the
long-term viability of the Group.
The European Commission will require the Group to effect
certain structural and behavioural measures. Accordingly,
over the last number of months, the Group and the
Department of Finance have been involved in detailed
negotiations with the European Commission in relation to
the terms of the EU Restructuring Plan.
The Group expects that the decision regarding the
approval of the proposed measures, including the final
binding terms of the EU Restructuring Plan, will be taken
by the European Commission, by mid-2010. Therefore, at
the date of this Prospectus, there can be no certainty as to
the outcome of the State aid proceedings and the content
of the final EU Restructuring Plan. The Group expects,
however, based on the current status of its negotiations
through the Department of Finance with the European
Commission that the final EU Restructuring Plan is likely to
consist of the key elements set out below.
Business Disposals
The Group will commit to dispose of certain businesses,
namely: (i) New Ireland Assurance Company plc, a
manufacturer of pension, life assurance and related
products for individuals and SMEs with approximately 19%
share of new business in Ireland; (ii) Bank of Ireland Asset
Management Limited, an investment management
business headquartered in Dublin with approximately A25
billion assets under management at 31 December 2009;
(iii) ICS Building Society, an Irish intermediary-sourced
mortgage business with mortgage loans of approximately
A7 billion (of which the Group will commit to sell a
minimum of A2 billion) and deposits of approximately A4
billion outstanding at 31 December 2009; (iv) Foreign
Currency Exchange Corporation, the Groups US foreign
exchange business; and (v) its stakes in Paul Capital Top
Tier Investments LLC and the Irish Credit Bureau Limited.
Historical financial impact on the Group business
disposals
The assets and liabilities, and the associated income and
expenses, of the businesses to be divested cannot be
determined with precision until nearer the date of sale.
However, the Group estimates that, as at 31 December
2009, the businesses to be divested comprised
approximately A7 billion of lending and approximately A4
billion of deposits and, on this basis, approximately A0.9
billion of Risk Weighted Assets. For the nine month period
ended 31 December 2009, the Group estimates that the
businesses to be divested generated underlying1 total
income of approximately A200 million, generated
underlying operating profit (before impairment charges) of
approximately A90 million, and contributed approximately
A40 million of underlying profit before tax to the Group.
Loan portfolios wind-down/sale
The Group continues to wind down its UK intermediary
sourced mortgage portfolio and also certain discontinued
international corporate lending portfolios (comprising
approximately 25% of customer lending at 31 December
2009). The Group will also attempt to accelerate the wind-
down of these portfolios by way of sale, but will not have
an obligation to sell either portfolio at less than book
value.
If the Group has not wound down or sold its UK
intermediary mortgage book to below an agreed level, it
will commit to meet the following target from 31
December 2013:
Group Customer Loans 100% Group Customer Deposits
plus Wholesale Funding H 1 year
1 Underlying excludes the gross-up for policyholder tax in
New Ireland which amounted to a gain of approximately
A60 million in the nine months ended 31 December 2009.
14
Historical financial impact on the Group wind-down
assets
The Group estimates that, as of 31 December 2009, the
loan portfolios to be wound down comprised
approximately A34 billion of lending and approximately A6
billion of Risk Weighted Assets. For the nine month period
ended 31 December 2009, the Group estimates that the
loan portfolios to be wound down generated total income
of approximately A190 million, generated operating profit
(before impairment charges) of approximately A145
million, and contributed approximately A60 million of profit
before tax to the Group.
Behavioural Commitments
Certain behavioural commitments, including:
The Group will make available a service package to
other banks and financial institutions comprising a range
of clearing and related operational services on a cost
recovery basis;
The Group will also facilitate customer mobility by
undertaking certain direct mailings of qualifying third
party financial product offerings to the Groups customer
base;
A commitment from the Group not to make discretionary
payments of coupons or to exercise voluntary call options
on hybrid capital securities from 1 February 2010 to 31
January 2011;
A commitment from the Bank not to pay dividends on
Ordinary Stock until the earlier of (i) 30 September 2012;
or (ii) such time as the 2009 Preference Stock is redeemed
or no longer owned by the State through the NPRFC or
otherwise; and
A commitment from the Bank not to make any material
acquisitions.
Implementation
These measures will be required to be implemented over
various time frames between now and December 2014.
The implementation of the final EU Restructuring Plan may
also require various approvals which may include
approvals from financial regulators, Stockholders pursuant
to the Listing Rules or other approvals required under
competition law.
Conclusion
The Directors believe that the anticipated final EU
Restructuring Plan as described above is sufficient to
obtain approval from the European Commission for all
State aid the Group has received including as a result of (i)
the NPRFC Investment; (ii) the Groups participation in
NAMA; and (iii) the extent that the Government
Transaction might constitute State aid. On the basis of the
impact indicated by the historical financial information set
out above the Directors do not expect that an EU
Restructuring Plan as described above, would be
materially detrimental to the long term interests of the
Group.
7. Re-affirmation of non-NAMA related loan impairment
estimates
As announced on 31 March 2010, the Group has
conducted an extensive internal review of its impairment
charge estimates on its non-NAMA bound loans and
advances to customers. The outcome of this review is to
re-affirm the Groups previous impairment charge
guidance of A4.7 billion on the non-NAMA bound loan
portfolio for the three years ending 31 March 2011.
In parallel with this review, the Group has engaged Oliver
Wyman, a leading international management consulting
firm, to independently review and challenge the Groups
impairment charge estimates on its non-NAMA bound
loans. Oliver Wyman has confirmed to the Group that, on
the basis of the work it has performed and subject to
limitations and qualifications set out in the Oliver Wyman
report, it believes the Groups non-NAMA impairment
charge estimates to be reasonable.
8. Pensions
The Group operates a number of defined benefit and
defined contribution pension schemes in Ireland and
overseas, with total scheme membership at approximately
29,000. As at 31 December 2009, the pension schemes
had an IAS 19 deficit of A1.63 billion, and, in January 2010,
the Group launched a pensions review programme to
address the deficit in its defined benefit schemes. The
main objectives of the review were (i) to achieve a
significant immediate reduction in the IAS 19 deficit; and
(ii) to reduce the cost and risk associated with pension
provision going forward.
15
The Group has had very significant engagement with
staff representative bodies and the relevant trustee
boards, and has undertaken a communications
programme with current employees and the other
members of the pension schemes. Extensive discussions
have taken place in order to address the deficit through a
shared solution, comprising a combination of benefit
restructuring and additional employer contributions over a
period of time.
Through this process and following a recommendation by
an independent third party chairman, the Bank, the main
bank union (IBOA) and the trustee board of the Bank of
Ireland Staff Pensions Fund (BSPF) (which accounts for
approximately 85% of the total deficit across all the
schemes) have reached an agreement in principle in
relation to the BSPF scheme. Where appropriate, similar
changes will be proposed for other schemes, and
discussions with other relevant trustee boards have
commenced. Based on these discussions, the agreement
in principle and other member feedback, the Directors are
confident of achieving a significant upfront reduction in
the pension deficit in the coming months.
Full implementation of the amendments to the Groups
pension schemes would eliminate approximately 50% of
the 31 December 2009 IAS 19 deficit. If such amendments
are implemented, the Bank will increase its cash
contributions, above existing cash contributions, to the
schemes so as to eliminate the approximately 50%
remaining of the 31 December 2009 IAS 19 deficit over
approximately 6 years.
9. Current trading, trends and prospects
Selected Financial Information1
For the nine month financial period ended 31 December
2009, the Group had total operating income, net of
insurance claims, of A3.60 billion (compared with A3.96
billion and A4.24 billion, respectively, for the financial
years ended 31 March 2009 and 31 March 2008) and loss
after tax of A1.47 billion (compared with profit after tax of
A18 million2 and A1.70 billion, respectively, for the
financial years ended 31 March 2009 and 31 March 2008).
As at 31 December 2009, the Group had total assets of
A181 billion (compared with A194 billion and A197 billion,
respectively, as at 31 March 2009 and 31 March 2008) and
shareholders equity of A6 billion (compared with A7 billion
and A7 billion, respectively, as at 31 March 2009 and 31
March 2008).
As at 31 December 2009, the Group had an Equity Tier 1
Capital Ratio of 5.3% (compared with 6.2% as at 31 March
2009), a Core Tier 1 Capital Ratio of 8.9% (compared with
9.5% as at 31 March 2009), a Tier 1 Capital Ratio of 9.8%
(compared with 12% as at 31 March 2009) and a Total
Capital Ratio of 13.4% (compared with 15.2% as at 31
March 2009). The capital ratios as at 31 December 2009
and 31 March 2009 have been calculated under Basel II.
As at 31 March 2008, the Group had an Equity Tier 1
Capital Ratio of 5.6%, a Core Tier 1 Capital Ratio of 5.7%,
a Tier 1 Capital Ratio of 8.1% and a Total Capital Ratio of
11.1%.
Trading Update
Trading conditions in the Groups core markets in Ireland
and the UK in the 2010 financial year remained
challenging though economic conditions have recently
shown some signs of stabilisation after the substantial fall
in economic output from early in 2008.
Net interest income is being impacted by a number of
factors:
the low interest rate environment together with the
impact of continuing competition on deposit pricing,
placing pressure on deposit margins;
the higher cost of wholesale funding as the Group
continues to increase the quantum of term funding
(wholesale funding with a maturity of one year or greater)
in pursuit of the Groups strategy to disengage in a
prudent manner from the Government Guarantee
Schemes; and
while lending margins on new business remain strong,
low levels of new business activity mutes the impact of
this.
As a result, the Group continues to anticipate some
downward pressure on net interest margin in 2010.
Ongoing strong cost discipline across the Group and the
benefits of business disposals and other initiatives
implemented in the prior financial year continue to deliver
cost savings as anticipated. The challenging economic
conditions, unemployment and weak consumer sentiment
continue to impact the loan impairment charge as
expected. The Directors continue to believe that loan
losses on non-NAMA bound loan portfolios have peaked
with the
1 This data has been extracted without material
adjustment from the December 2009 Annual Report, the
2009 Annual Report and the 2008 Annual Report.
2 This figure has been restated to reflect the impact of the
adoption of Amendments to IFRS 2 Shares-based
Payment Vesting Conditions and Cancellations
16
impairment charge progressively reducing as
previously guided. Expected loan losses on these
portfolios for the three year period to 31 March 2011
remain within the loan loss guidance of A4.7 billion.
The quantum of customer lending, including loans held for
sale to NAMA, remains broadly unchanged at 31 March
2010 when compared to 31 December 2009 on a constant
currency basis. The demand for new loans is muted.
Competition for customer deposits remains intense and
customer deposits at 31 March 2010 are marginally lower
compared to 31 December 2009 on a constant currency
basis. In January 2010, the Groups long term and short
term credit ratings were downgraded by Standard & Poors
to A- / A-2 with a stable outlook. In the quarter ended 31
March 2010 the Group raised approximately A4.5 billion in
term funding (funding with a maturity greater than one
year at date of issue). In line with the Groups stated
goals, the maturity profile of its wholesale funding has
been extended with over 37% of its overall wholesale
funding having a maturity of greater than one year at 31
March 2010 compared to 32% at 31 December 2009.
Equity Tier 1 Capital and Core Tier 1 Capital were
positively impacted by the Lower Tier 2 Securities
exchange completed in February 2010 which generated a
gain of A405 million.
10. Dividend Policy
On 13 November 2008, in light of the deteriorating
economic conditions and the determination to preserve
capital, the Bank announced its decision to cancel
dividend payments on Ordinary Stock for the financial year
ending 31 March 2009.
On 19 January 2010, following communications from the
European Commission that the Bank should not make
coupon payments on its Tier 1 Securities and Upper Tier 2
Securities unless under a binding legal obligation to do so,
the Group announced that the non-cumulative
distributions on the LP2 Securities and the LP3 Securities,
which would otherwise have been payable on 1 February
2010 and 4 February 2010 respectively, would not be paid.
The effect of this decision by the Bank was to trigger the
dividend stopper provisions of the LP2 Securities. While
these dividend stoppers remain in force, the Group is
precluded for a period of one calendar year from and
including 1 February 2010 from declaring and making any
distribution or dividend payment on its Ordinary Stock, the
non-cumulative euro and Sterling Preference Stock, the
2009 Preference Stock and the Hybrid/Preferred Securities.
The Bank issued the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock to the
NPRFC on Monday, 22 February 2010 in lieu of the cash
dividend due to the holders of the 2009 Preference Stock
on 20 February 2010.
In addition, under the terms of the CIFS Guarantee
Scheme, the Bank is precluded from paying dividends on
the Ordinary Stock without the prior approval of the
Minister for Finance until the expiry of the CIFS Guarantee
Scheme which is scheduled to take place on 29 September
2010. The prohibition can be extended under the ELG
Scheme.
Under the EU Restructuring Plan, the Group will commit
not to make discretionary payments of coupons or to
exercise voluntary call options on hybrid capital securities
on or before 31 January 2011. Thereafter, any conditions
imposed by the European Commission in respect of hybrid
capital securities are expected to fall away. Also under the
EU Restructuring Plan, the Bank will commit not to pay
dividends on its Ordinary Stock until the earlier of (i) 30
September 2012; or (ii) such date that the 2009
Preference Stock is redeemed or no longer owned by the
State through the NPRFC or otherwise.
The Directors intend to resume paying dividends on
Ordinary Stock after the above conditions have been
satisfied and the Group has demonstrated that it can
maintain appropriate capital ratios and sustainable profits.
11. Overview of Bank of Ireland
The Group provides a broad range of financial services in
Ireland to all major sectors of the Irish economy. These
include monetary transmission services (including current
accounts) and deposit taking, overdrafts, term loans,
mortgages, business and corporate lending, international
asset financing, leasing, instalment credit, debt factoring,
foreign exchange facilities, interest and exchange rate
hedging instruments, life assurance, pension investment
and investment fund management, fund administration
and custodial services and financial advisory services,
including mergers and acquisitions and underwriting.
17
The Group provides services in euro and other
currencies. The Group markets and sells its products on a
domestic basis through its extensive nationwide
distribution network in Ireland, which consists of 251 full
time branches and approximately 1,300 ATMs, its direct
telephone banking service, direct sales forces and its
online services.
The UK Financial Services (UKFS) division incorporates
Business Banking in Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
the branch network in Northern Ireland, the discontinued
intermediary sourced mortgage business operating under
Bristol & West and Bank of Ireland brands and the joint
ventures with the UK Post Office, namely Post Office
Financial and Travel Services. In addition, the Bank
provides corporate lending and treasury products and
services to corporate customers in Northern Ireland,
England, Scotland and Wales through its corporate
banking and global markets businesses which have offices
in Belfast, Bristol and London.
Operations in the rest of the world are undertaken by:
12.
Corporate Banking, which is engaged in international
lending, with operations located in France, Germany and
the US;
Global Markets, which delivers a comprehensive range of
risk management products to the Groups customer base.
Additional Information
For further information on the capital stock of the Bank,
see paragraph 2 (Capital Stock) of Part XVIII (Additional
Information) of this Prospectus. For further information on
related party transactions, see paragraph 7 (Related Party
Transactions) of Part XVIII (Additional Information) of this
Prospectus. A summary of the Banks Charter and Bye-
Laws is set out in paragraph 4 (Charter and Bye-Laws) of
Part XVIII (Additional Information) of this Prospectus. For
further information on the documents on display, see
paragraph 20 (Documents Available For Inspection) of Part
XVIII (Additional Information) of this Prospectus.
13. Risk Factors
The Groups financial results, financial condition and
prospects could be materially and adversely affected by
any of the risks described below:
General risks related to Bank of Ireland
Ireland: The Groups businesses are subject to risks
arising from general and sector specific economic
conditions in Ireland, which have materially adversely
affected the Groups earnings and are likely to continue to
affect its results, financial condition and prospects;
Further downgrades to the Irish sovereign ratings or
outlook could impair the Groups access to funding, trigger
additional collateral requirements and weaken its
competitive position;
In addition to Ireland, the Groups businesses are subject
to inherent risks arising from general and sector specific
economic conditions in other countries to which the Group
has an exposure, particularly in the United Kingdom.
Adverse developments, such as the recent deterioration in
general economic conditions and in the global financial
markets, have already materially adversely affected the
Groups earnings and are likely to continue to affect its
results, financial condition and prospects;
Decreases in the credit quality of the Groups borrowers
and counterparties, as well as increased difficulties in
relation to the recoverability of loans and other amounts
due from such borrowers and counterparties, have
resulted in increases, and could result in further significant
increases, in the Groups impaired loans and impairment
charges;
Increased volatility in financial markets has resulted in,
and may continue to result in, reduced asset valuations
which could further adversely affect the Groups results,
financial condition and prospects;
The Group is exposed to declining property values and a
deterioration in the performance of the residential and
commercial property markets, particularly in Ireland and
the United Kingdom;
Market risks, including interest rate risk, foreign
exchange risk, bond and equity price risk and other
market risks, could materially adversely affect the Groups
results, financial condition and prospects;
Constraints on liquidity, lack of availability of funding
and increased cost of funding could materially adversely
affect the Groups business;
The Group relies on customer deposits to fund a
considerable portion of its loan portfolio, the ongoing
availability of which is sensitive to factors outside the
Groups control. Loss of consumer confidence in the
Groups business or in banking businesses generally,
among other things, could result in unexpectedly high
18
levels of customer deposit withdrawals, which could
have a material adverse effect on the Groups results,
financial condition and liquidity prospects;
The termination of, or changes to the operation of, or the
participation by the Group in, the CIFS Guarantee Scheme
and the ELG Scheme or changes in the terms of the
Groups participation in such schemes could have an
adverse effect on the Groups results, financial condition
and prospects;
The Irish banking system may restructure and change
significantly which could have a material adverse effect on
the Groups results, financial condition and prospects;
The NPRFC Investment, the Government Transaction and
NAMA are the subject of a review by the European
Commission under EU State aid rules, the outcome of
which is uncertain and may involve the prohibition of
some or all elements of the State aid provided to the
Group by the Government, the requirement for the Group
to repay the State aid, or the imposition of conditions on
the Group that may be materially adverse to its interests;
The Groups participation in the CIFS Guarantee Scheme,
the ELG Scheme, the NPRFC Investment, NAMA and the
Government Transaction could require the Group to
implement operational policies that could materially
adversely affect the Groups results, financial condition
and prospects;
Participation in NAMA may subject the Group to
directions from the Financial Regulator, NAMA, the Minister
for Finance or the European Commission which could have
a material adverse effect on the Groups results, financial
condition and prospects;
The NPRFC could exercise its voting rights in a manner
which is not aligned with the interests of the Group or its
other stockholders;
A change in Government policy or the Irish Government
could have a material adverse effect on the Groups
results, financial condition, liquidity and prospects;
The discount on disposal of Bank of Ireland Eligible Bank
Assets to NAMA may exceed the Groups estimate of A4.4
billion (including impairment provisions of A2.8 billion at
31 December 2009), and if it did it would adversely impact
the Groups capital and results of operations. Even after
the transfer of assets to NAMA, the Group is exposed to
some of NAMAs losses in the event that NAMA has an
underlying loss at the conclusion of its operations;
A series of further downgrades to the Groups credit
ratings or credit outlook could impair the Groups access
to funding, either by borrowing or through access to
capital markets, trigger additional collateral requirements
and/or weaken its competitive position;
The Group operates in competitive markets (subject to
some price regulation) which are subject to significant
change and uncertainty which could have a material
adverse effect on its results, financial condition and
prospects;
The Group is subject to extensive regulation and
oversight. Failure to comply with its regulatory obligations
and to manage the associated risks properly could have a
material adverse effect on the Groups results, financial
condition and prospects;
The Group is subject to extensive regulation and
supervision in relation to the levels of capital in its
business. The minimum regulatory capital requirements,
as well as the manner in which existing regulatory capital
is calculated, could change in the future, which could
materially adversely affect the Groups results, financial
conditions and prospects;
If the Group proceeds to transfer part of its UK business
to a newly-incorporated, wholly owned subsidiary, any
such subsidiary could be subject to special resolution
regime powers under the UK Banking Act 2009;
If the Group is required to hold higher levels of capital
than anticipated by the market, this could have a material
adverse impact on the Groups results, financial condition
and prospects;
The Group may be subject to litigation proceedings and
regulatory investigations which could have a material
adverse impact on its results, financial condition and
prospects;
If a court of law were to determine that the Bank is
under a binding legal obligation to pay dividends on the
1992 Preference Stock, except in certain specified
circumstances, the Bank could be required to compensate
holders or former holders of the 1992 Preference Stock
and could potentially be subject to claims by holders or
former holders of Hybrid/Preferred Securities;
The investigation into the factors which contributed to
the Irish banking crisis announced by the Irish
Government, may result in the Group incurring costs in
facilitating and engaging with the investigation and may
result, depending on the findings of the investigation, in
reputational damage to the Group or further investigations
into the Groups conduct;
19
The Group may not succeed in implementing or fully
implementing its plan to reduce the deficits in the defined
benefit pension schemes it sponsors by a combination of
benefit restructuring and additional employer
contributions. In the event that these deficits result in the
schemes becoming unable to meet their liabilities, the
Group could elect to, or be required to, make additional,
potentially significant, contributions to the schemes which
could have a materially negative impact on the Groups
financial condition and trading performance. In addition,
and notwithstanding the implementation of these plans to
reduce the deficits, the Group may if appropriate, elect to,
or may be required to, make further contributions to its
pension schemes if the value of pension fund assets is not
sufficient to cover potential obligations;
Weaknesses or failures in the Groups internal processes
and procedures including IT or equipment failures and
other operational risks could have a material adverse
effect on the Groups results, financial condition and
prospects and could result in reputational damage;
The Groups life assurance business is subject to
inherent risks involving claims, as well as market
conditions generally;
In Ireland and the Isle of Man, the Group is responsible
for contributing to compensation schemes in respect of
banks and other authorised financial services firms that
may be unable to meet their obligations to customers;
If the Group becomes subject to employment disputes or
industrial action, this could adversely affect its business;
The Group may not be able to recruit, retain and develop
appropriate senior management and skilled personnel;
The Groups operations have inherent reputational risk,
meaning the risk to earnings and capital from negative
public opinion;
The effect of the realisation of country risk in respect of
other sovereign issuers could spread to Irish financial
institutions and could result in a material adverse effect on
the Groups results, financial condition and prospects;
The value of certain financial instruments recorded at
fair value is determined using financial models
incorporating assumptions, judgements and estimates
that may change over time or may ultimately not turn out
to be accurate;
Change of control may lead to adverse consequences for
the Group;
Changes in taxation rates, legislation or practice may
lead to adverse consequences for the Group; and
The Groups results of operations and the markets in
which it operates may be adversely affected by terrorist,
geopolitical, pandemic and natural disaster risks.
Risks relating to the Proposals
The Proposals may not be approved by Stockholders at
the Extraordinary General Court;
If the Group does not raise capital through the Proposals
(including as a result of the Resolutions not being
approved or the termination of the Underwriting
Agreement), it may be unable to access additional capital
or find alternative methods of increasing its Equity Tier 1
Capital Ratio, Core Tier 1 Capital Ratio, Tier 1 Capital Ratio
and Total Capital Ratio, and there will be further limits on
its ability to access capital, and its business, financial
condition, results of operations and stock price will suffer.
As a result, it may be necessary for the Group to seek
further equity investment by the Irish Government, which
may lead to majority State ownership and ultimately to
nationalisation; and
Stockholders may have their percentage ownership
diluted depending on the extent to which they take up
their rights entitlements under the Rights Issue and to the
extent that debt holders elect to receive Allotment
Instruments under the Debt for Equity Offers.
Risks relating to the Rights Issue, the Institutional Placing
and the NPRFC Placing
Stockholders who do not subscribe for Rights Issue Stock
in the Rights Issue will experience dilution in their
ownership of the Bank;
Stockholders will experience dilution in their ownership
of the Bank as a result of the Placing and the Debt for
Equity Offers;
An active trading market in the Nil Paid Rights may not
develop;
the Ordinary Stock issued pursuant to the NPRFC Placing
and the NPRFC Coupon Ordinary Stock to trading on the
Irish Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange may
not occur when expected; and
20
It may be difficult for investors outside Ireland to serve
process on or enforce foreign judgments against the Bank
in connection with the Rights Issue and the Institutional
Placing.
Risks relating to the Ordinary Stock
The Banks stock price has been and could further be
subject to significant fluctuations;
The market price of Ordinary Stock may be materially
adversely affected by a significant sale of Ordinary Stock
by the NPRFC;
The Group is currently precluded from paying dividends
or distributions on certain instruments affected by the
terms of a dividend stopper, including the 2009
Preference Stock and the ACSM Hybrids for a period of one
calendar year from and including 1 February 2010. In the
event that the Group remains, or subsequently becomes,
precluded from paying, or elects not to pay, such
dividends on the 2009 Preference Stock and/or the ACSM
Hybrids, it will be required to issue units of Ordinary Stock
to the holders of the 2009 Preference Stock (being the
NPRFC) and/or to a trustee on behalf of the holders of the
ACSM Hybrids, as the case may be. Consequently, the
proportionate ownership and voting interests of Existing
Stockholders will be diluted;
Future issues of Ordinary Stock on a non-pre-emptive
basis may further dilute the holdings of Existing
Stockholders and could materially affect the market price
of the Ordinary Stock. The market price of the Ordinary
Stock may also be adversely affected by the sale of a
large amount of Ordinary Stock by a significant
stockholder; and
The Bank is currently precluded and will be precluded for
some period from paying dividends in respect of the
Ordinary Stock and this may have an adverse effect on the
market price of the Ordinary Stock.
Snap election threat 'if

Coveney does not accept
water recommendations'
- Fianna Fil warns
Barry Cowen rejects suggestions row is
over infamous tweet about his brother
March 1, 17
The Irish Water gang trio of Michael Martin, Simon
Coveney and Enda Kenny
The Government will collapse if Fine Gael
Minister Simon Coveney refuses to accept
recommendations laid down by the
Oireachtas Water Committee, Fianna Fil
has warned.
In a clear heightening of tensions, Fianna Fil TD Barry
Cowen accused Mr Coveney of making a premature,
unprecedented and nothing but political intervention in
the water row.
Quite unbelievable, Mr Coveney added.
The two parties are at loggerheads over the water issue,
which has made the prospect of a snap election a real
possibility.
Fine Gael want to introduce a system of excessive usage -
a position that is being rejected by Fianna Fil and Sinn
Fin.
Speaking to reporters on the Dil plinth, Mr Cowen
ramped up the tensions with Mr Coveney.
If he refuses to legislate, if he refuses to adhere to the
Confidence and Supply Agreement and whats contained
within it, its him who is tearing it up and its him who is
bringing down the government. Yes.
Mr Cowen rejected suggestions that a tweet sent by Mr
Coveney about his brother, former Taoiseach Brian
Cowen, is behind the latest row.
Mr Coveneys tweet, sent following Mr Coveneys infamous
Morning Ireland interview in 2010, read:
"God, what an uninspiring interview by Taoiseach this
morning. He sounded half way between drunk and
hungover and totally disinterested.
Mr Cowen said the issue is now behind him and his family.
Theres nothing personal in this by the way and I heard
someone making that comment earlier on the radio in
relation to what happened seven years ago. Thats a long
way behind me I can tell you and everyone belonging to
me.
Mr Cowen declined to say whether he has confidence in
the Attorney General Mire Whelan, whose advice is being
relied upon by Fine Gael.
Pressed on whether his party would publish its own legal
advice on its website, Mr Cowens colleague Willie ODea
said this would be done later today. Mr Cowen later it
could happen today, tomorrow.
Fianna Fil also rejected claims that it does not support
penalising people who waste water.
The party says the issue could be dealt with under the
Water Services Act 2007.
Mr Cowen said his party supports the thrust of that piece
of legislation, which includes hefty fines and court
appearances for those who waste their water supply.
Housing Minister Simon Coveney
Housing Minister Simon Coveney is to risk
to a general election by facing down an
ultimatum from Fianna Fil over the
scrapping of water charges.
The minister believes it would be "blatantly irresponsible"
to introduce legislation to permanently end charges and
leave Ireland open to massive fines from the EU.
A committee set up by the Government to decide the
future of water services is on course to recommend that
they be funded through general taxation after Fianna Fil
dramatically hardened their position on the issue.
In a high-risk strategy, senior Fianna Fil figures said they
would be prepared for an early election rather than
support the re-introduction of a charging regime.
This includes a proposal laid down by the Independent
Expert Commission that charges should be brought in only
for those engaged in "excessive usage".
But during a 25-minute press conference last night, Mr

Coveney emphatically stated that he will not abolish water
charges contrary to EU law.
"I'm just not going to do that as a minister. I will not
introduce legislation that potentially exposes the country
to severe penalties and fines from the European
Commission. I won't do that. We have clear advice from
the Attorney General's office.
"There has to be some consequence for households
wasting large amounts of water," he said.
He accused Fianna Fil of having a similar position "up
until a few days ago".
Stunned
Senior Fianna Fil sources were last night stunned by Mr
Coveney's reaction, with their party spokesman on water,
Barry Cowen, claiming the minister was breaking the
'confidence and supply' arrangement which ensures the
minority Government's survival.
It states that the Government must facilitate the passage
of legislation based on the committee's recommendations
"including abolition".
During a heated private sitting of the Oireachtas water
committee, the Independent chairperson Pdraig
Cidigh warned he could not accept proposals that are
illegal.
A source close to the senator last night said he was trying
to impress the view that any proposals brought forward
must be "workable".
Yesterday's meeting was tense and acrimonious. Anti-
Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy was told to "grow up"
for tweeting details of the meeting, while Sinn Fin TD
Eoin Broin was criticised for holding a press briefing
while the issue of water charges was still being discussed.
With the Dil due to vote on the issue of water charges
next month, the 20-person committee is now split down
the middle.
Ten members say they are opposed to any form of
charging regime. These include the five Fianna Fil
representatives, two Sinn Fin TDs, Independent deputies
Seamus Healy and Thomas Pringle and Mr Murphy. The
six Fine Gael representatives are in favour of a charging
regime for excessive usage, as are Labour's Jan O'Sullivan
and Senator Grace O'Sullivan of the Green Party.
Independent TD for Galway West Noel Grealish has yet to
decide his stance.
This means that the chairman, Senator Ceidigh may be
required to use his casting vote.
If the committee can resolve its differences, Fine Gael may
be forced to produce a minority report.
But with the Dil arithmetic stacked against the
Government, the prospect of charges returning at all
seems highly unlikely.
During the meeting, Mr Cowen told the committee his
party wants charges completely "scrapped".
He said the country's water system should be funded
through general taxation and within the parameters of the
so-called fiscal space.
The party also wants refunds issued to those who have
paid their bills but said these should be offset against the
Government's 100 conservation grant.
Meanwhile, a new opinion poll shows the vast majority of
voters believe households that waste water should be
charged for in some form.
The Labour Party commissioned 'Ireland Thinks' put a
series of statements relating to water charges to over 1,000
people to gauge attitudes.
The standout result was 77.9pc who said they either
agreed or strongly agreed that people who waste water
should be charged. Just 16.7 disagreed with this view.
Overall 68.7pc said everybody should pay something
towards water.
At the same time 51.4pc agreed that water is a basic
human right.
The Water Charges debate has created a

political storm.
Here are the key proposals contained in a draft document
prepared by water committee chairman Pdraig Ceidigh,
which have been seen by Independent.ie.
The key proposal about excessive water usage is the
subject of a row between Fine Gael and Fianna Fil.
An excessive water usage charge under the polluter pays
principle to comply with EU law
Refunds for households which have paid their bills
Domestic meters already installed to be retained and
requirement for all new builds to have meters installed
Tax/welfare benefit for those who voluntarily take up a
domestic meter
Waivers for users with high consumption who have
certified medical conditions
Tax relief for the installation of systems that reduce water
consumption
Consideration for those on group water schemes
All new buildings must incorporate water conservation
fittings
Referendum to keep Irish Water in public ownership
Establishment of a Drinking Water Inspectorate, similar to
the UK
Make the Public Water forum an advisor to the
Commission for Energy Regulation (CER)
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/coveney-
risks-general-election-by-facing-down-ff-ultimatum-on-
water-charges-35491606.html
Refunds for those who have paid their water

bills will be offset against the 100
conservation grant, Independent.ie
understands.
This means that in excess of 800,000 that received the
grant will not profit as a result of being issued with a full
refund by the State.
The news comes as a major standoff has developed
between Fine Gael and Fianna Fil at todays meeting of
the water committee.
Fianna Fil TD Barry Cowen told the committee, which sat
in private session, that his party wants charged completely
scrapped.
He said the countrys water system should be funded
Mr Cowen also said his party stands by its legal advice that
says scrapping charges is in line with the EU directive
governing water.
Significantly, Mr Cowen said he does not accept the
proposed excessive usage principle.
This was recommended by the Expert Commission that
said households should pay water bills if their usage is
above a certain point.
But Fine Gael has been left isolated as it insisted that the
recommendations from the commission should be
followed.
Fianna Fil is siding with Sinn Fin and left wing TDs -
meaning the prospect of water charges returning seem
highly unlikely.
If a compromise is not reached, the committee may end up
producing separate reports.
One will be a minority report authored by Fine Gael
deputies.
Both reports could then go to the Dil for a vote after St
Patricks Day.
At todays meeting, its understood ten members
expressed opposition to the idea of charges.
This includes the five Fianna Fil members, two Sinn Fin
members, AAA/PBP TD Paul Murphy and Independent
TDs Seamus Healy and Thomas Pringle.
Those in favour of a charging regime include the six Fine
Gael members, Labour Party TD Jan OSullivan and Green
Party senator Grace OSullivan.
Two members have not expressed a preference,
Independent TD Noel Grealish and Independent senator
Padraig O Ceidigh, who is the committee chairperson.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/snap-election-threat-if-coveney-
does-not-accept-water-recommendations-fianna-fil-warns-35493243.html
Coveney in election
gamble as FF issues water
bill ultimatum
Ending charges would risk huge EU
fines, says FG
Kevin Doyle and Niall O'Connor
March 1 2017
Housing Minister Simon Coveney is to risk a

general election by facing down an
support the reintroduction of a charging regime.
Fianna Fil TDs last night accused Mr Coveney of placing
the Confidence and Supply Agreement at risk.
"The Confidence and Supply Agreement is being
compromised by his actions," the party's water
spokesman, Barry Cowen, said.
who have paid up
Niall O'Connor
February 28 2017
charges.
say.
general election.
of 100m.
parties.
doable.
35488713.html
Every citizen has a right to have access to clean water etc. But, that does
not mean that this access should not be funded by the consumer. A right
to untrammelled access to free water for all the citizenry is plain wrong.
Such a service needs to be funded by the user just as is the provision of
electricity or a passport or public transport. Charges for water usage are
logical and necessary (that they are mandated by the EU is a spurious
argument). The reason (not a small one) for which they are being
opposed is due entirely to political expediency. There is no economic
logic is dispensing with water charges.
The fact that SUCCESSIVE FFG governments siphoned it off elsewhere
is not the fault of the taxpayers. I will not pay for it twice and certainly
not to IW.
The majority of people do not want direct water charges. It has already
been established that installing meters in every house to potentially
catch a tiny minority who may waste water excessively is not
economically viable - in fact it's simply stupid. So forget about it, it is
not going to happen. If you're not willing to implement the will of the
majority of Irish Citizens on this issue, then step aside. FG will be
demolished in any upcoming election, keep pushing it Simon.
Back in 2011, under Fine Fail, it was decided in the budget to reduce the
tax relief on pensions. The savings to the exchequer were going to be
huge, over 1bn per annum. But the plan was scrapped and hardly
anyone knew about it.
The water would cost the State around the same, ie 1bn per annum,
and it took years for the majority of the general pulic to have it
overturned.
What does this say about the perception of politics in Ireland and who
really governs Ireland?
People are not fools when bin charges came in we were told its a modest
fee the polluter must pay there was waivers for the poor and old now its
a money making machine for private industry without regulation,
charge what you like only stopped by voluntary intervention from
paying for recycling. The same thing will happen with water the average
bill according to the back of the water bill will be 700 per year once all
the discounts are removed. I will vote for any party that promises to
remove this vile charge, I remember FG's promise to do away with the
USC still waiting its back to people power and Mr.Coveney is still not
listening and did not get the message after the last election I say bring it
on and get your answer.
Come on, Blueshirts, call that election and let's see how well you get on.
Since day one, the 2011 coalition worked steadfastly to restore investor
confidence, at home and internationally, to reassure members of that
community that Ireland was under new management and had reopened
for business.
Renewed confidence has attracted large injections of FDI, resulting in
thousands of new jobs, which has in turn encouraged indigenous
businesses to open, or expand. The incredibly sedative affect Noonan
in particular had on his EU counterparts inspired the confidence which
enabled him to secure the approval of the other 27 members of the EU
to allow Ireland repay the IMF segment of our bailout and refinance it at
much lower rates, with an estimated saving of 3.5 billion. While
Irelands national debt and its servicing still weigh heavily on the State,
that same confidence enables the Exchequer to fund it at 0.91% (10 year
yield) significantly lower than that being demanded of Portugal 3.91%,
Spain 1.66% and Italy 2.1%.
Tourism plays a significant role in our economy and initiatives such as
The Gathering, the reduction in the VAT rate and most recently The
Wild Atlantic Way, are widely credited with the impressive recovery in
that industry since 2013. Negativity is deeply ingrained in the Irish
psyche but after 7 years of economic stagnation, Ireland's economic
cycle has changed for the better and that gloomy outlook has become
less pervasive. Ireland stands out as one of the EU's brighter success
stories.
this reads like a FG party manifesto. Meanwhile the EU continues to
attack our Corp TAX rate and the elephant in the room, BREXIT
continues to be ignored while FG have internal squabbles about who
should lead the party. Also you conveniently forgot to address the
specifics asked.
The EU, in particular Germany & France love Ireland as we are a

subservient lot who didn't even utter a whimper when saddled with
huge bank debts. Sure you leader was even voted by a German magazine
as "European of the Year".
Keep the recovery going me arse .... people cannot rent in Dublin due to
the ridiculous rents charged and lack of suitable accommodation and we
stand to lose out on all those financial companies wishing to relocate
outside London because we cannot plan to have suitable office space,
accommodation etc. etc...!
who have paid up
February 28 2017
charges.
say.
general election.
of 100m.
parties.
doable.
35488713.html
Fine Gael-Fianna Fil rift over water
charges may spark election
FF bid to scrap excessive use charge ruled out by Coveney
as move would be illegal.
Simon Coveney: Said he was willing to consider the option

of refunds.
Fine Gael and Fianna Fil are on a collision course over

scrapping water charges in a fresh row which has moved
the country closer to the threat of a snap general election.
Fianna Fil wants to permanently abolish water bills,
including any charge for excessive use, a move Housing
Minister Simon Coveney definitively ruled out last night.
Mr Coveney said that he would not, as an office holder,
bring in any legislation that was contrary to EU law or the
advice of the Attorney General, or exposed the country to
huge fines.
Fine Gael wants some charge to remain for excessive use
or wastage. The minister said Fianna Fil had changed its
position only in the last few days.
Any [committee] recommendation has to be consistent
with the water framework directive in our view, otherwise
we will essentially be introducing a new water regime
which would be illegal, he said.
And the European Commission have made it very clear
that they will take action and I will not do anything that
will potentially expose the State to very significant
penalties and fines. Im just not going to do that as a
minister.
The row intensified after Fianna Fil earlier in the day
revealed that it favoured refunds and an end to homes
being metered, but also opposed any future charge for
excessive use.
A system of refunds would cost over 160m, and an end
to household metering would raise questions about the
500m already spent on water meters. Mr Coveney
yesterday said he may be willing to consider the option of
refunds
Fianna Fil outlined its position to an Oireachtas
committee on water charges, and its stance means the
group could recommend to the Dil a system of refunds
but possibly also the abolishing of charges if an excessive
water levy is also ruled out.
This last point shocked Fine Gael members, with one
senior party source saying last night: If Fianna Fil
maintains its position, there will be a general election in a
few months.
Fianna Fils Barry Cowen told the Irish Examiner his party
supported refunds and did not buy the idea of an
excessive use charge.
We dont believe there is an excessive use, its leakage
that is the problem, he said.
Fianna Fil says existing legislation can be used to fine
households wasting water and general taxation can fund
services.
It is also standing by legal advice it received which claims
scrapping water bills is in line with EU rules, as Ireland
received a derogation or exemption previously.
The partys position means 10 of 20 members on the
committee now formally oppose any future water charges,
when the stance of Sinn Fin, AAA, and Independents are
included.
Those groups also oppose any more home water meters
being installed and instead want district metering, which is
used in Scotland.
Those in favour of charging include the six Fine Gael
members and one Labour TD. The position of two
Independent members and a Green TD remain unknown.
AAA-PBP member Mick Barry said the view of the
committee now signalled a victory for the Irish people
after huge protests.
What the parliament does, the street can undo, he said.
Sinn Fin TD Eoin Broin said the development was a
win for ordinary people.
Im pretty confident we have seen the end of water
charges once and for all, he said.
With Fianna Fil opposing an excessive charge, the
Government may be forced into permanently scrapping
charges. The confidence and supply deal between the
parties states they both reserve their right to adopt
differing positions on water.
It also states the Government will be the ones to pass
legislation on recommendations on charges, even if this
includes their abolition.
However, Mr Coveneys insistence that the Government
will not breach EU law means that its potentially prepared
for the first time to risk collapsing its confidence and
supply agreement. Without Fianna Fils support in the
Dil, the Government would have no choice but to call a
general election.
Mr Coveney denied he would be breaching the agreement
if he refuses to pass any legislation on charges, as the
deal did not include obliging office holders to break the
law. The minister said he wanted all sides to reach a
compromise.
The Oireachtas committee resumes deliberations today.
Fianna Fil has come under fire for its position on water
charges, in the latest Dil debate on water charges.
It is refusing to support a Sinn Fin motion calling for

water to be paid through general taxation, even though
that's its own position.
During the debate Sinn Fin's Louise O'Reilly said Fianna

Fil had "more positions than the Kama Sutra" on the
issue.
But housing minister Simon Coveney defended the expert
group on water, and said the system DID need major
investment.
"When I was a minister for agriculture it was made crystal

clear to me - in conference after conference after
conference - that one of the very few, and you can count
them on one hand, the number of countries in the world
that dont have any predicted water security issues and
Ireland is on the top of the list."
Sinn Fin President Gerry Adams TD said: Call it political

manoeuvring. Call it doublespeak. But dont call it new
politics. Its vintage Fianna Fil politics. Its all about the
party and the lust for power.
The fact is there is a necessity to scrap water charges

without delay. That is the only way the debacle of water
charges and Irish Water will be dealt with.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/fg-ff-rift-over-water-charges-
may-spark-election-444115.html
Taoiseach insists Government will not

support any water charge system that
breaks EU laws
02/03/2017
Update 3.15pm: Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said that his
Government will not implement legislation on water charges
which is illegal, writes Daniel McConnell.
Speaking in Brussels, Mr Kenny said that it is for the
Committee to hammer out a compromise and deliver a
recommendation for the Dail to vote on.
"Clearly, you are not going to implement something that is
illegal," the Taoiseach said.
He added: "The committee has not finished its work, it was
given a paper by the chairman. I would expect them to
deliberate on that and continue their work until such time as
they bring forward their views and their recommendations to
the Oireachtas."
Asked whether Attorney General Maire Whelan could be made
available to Fianna Fail to help resolve the matter, Mr Kenny
poured cold water on the idea.
He said: "You don't make the advice of the Attorney General

available like that. I've said yesterday in the Dail, we set up a
committee to examine the recommendations of the expert
commission.
"As we said we want the discussions to continue within the
committee. When they are finished their work, they will report
to the Oireachtas," he added.
Update 11.47am: It has emerged that a small number of
households are still claiming the 100 water conservation
grant - despite it being scrapped a year ago.
The grant was paid to households in 2015 as a way of helping
to cover the cost of water bills, and subsidise water
conservation measures.
The state spent 89m covering the cost of the grants, which
were then scrapped when water charges were suspended.
However the Public Accounts Committee has been told this
morning that a small number of households are still claiming
the one-off grant, having not received it in 2015.
Seperately, a Junior Minister has said that there needs to be a
reasonable approach to water charges.
Joe McHugh said that the Oireachtas committee on water
needs to be given a chance to complete its work.
Fianna Fil and Fine Gael are at odds over the legality of
scrapping the charges.
Mr McHugh said there is an energy in Fine Gael to reach a
solution and avoid a possible election.
"There's always the potential, in the moniortity situation that
we're in," he said.
"We have a confidence and suppley [agreement] with Fianna
Fil and I'm sure people within Fianna Fil, who I speak to
privatey as well, that can find a solution to this empasse."
Earlier:
Fine Gael members have been warned that Ireland would be
hit with a daily 20,000 fine, backdated to 2009, if water
charges are scrapped, writes Elaine Loughlin, Political
Reporter.
Senator Paudie Coffey, who is a member of the water
committee, told party members that Ireland would be fined
more than 50m by the European Commission if they do not
implement water charges.
He said that the arguments in favour of scrapping water

charges put forward by Fianna Fil in recent days were legally
questionable and told his fellow Fine Gael members that the
commission had already given Ireland a grace period to
introduce these charges.
He said said that it was always going to be difficult toward the
end of negotiations around the future of water.
It was agreed that space be given to the Fine Gael team in the
committee to continue to negotiate the issues.
Housing Minister Simon Coveney also reiterated his stance
that he will not legislate on something that is illegal.
There was laughter when Mr Coffey suggested that he had got
to know members of the committee intimately during their
work on the future of water charges.
Separately measures to free up vacant properties around the
country were raised during the meeting.
Fergus ODowd told the meeting that there are currently 4,491
vacant homes in Cork City, with only 52 of these holiday
homes.
He said Irelands vacancy rates were extremely high when

compared with those of the UK.
Mr ODowd told Fine Gael members that Cork currently has a
vacancy rate of 8.1%, this compares to a vacancy rate of just
1.7% in London.
He suggested that homeowners who leave properties vacant
for more than a year should be penalised with a levy.
This motion was supported by Housing Minister Simon
Coveney.
Mr Coveney said he was already looking into the high rates of
vacant properties across the country and hoped to have a
report back on the matter in the next six to eight weeks.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Taoiseach Enda Kenny
singled out secretary Noel Rock and noted what a good job he
was doing on the minute-taking of meetings.
This again prompted some laughter.
It comes after the Dublin North-West TD faced criticism when
he publicly suggested that it was time Mr Kenny stood down
as Fine Gael leader.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/l
atesttaoiseach-insists-government-
will-not-support-any-water-charge-
system-that-breaks-eu-laws-
779601.html
Was it legal to guarantee privately owned banks without cabinet
approval .Or to change illegal promisary notes into national
debt.The institutions of this state are crumbling rapidly ,.The sooner
the better ,as they are nothing but festering cess pits of greed and
corruption .No reform will change that .They all need to collapse
Article 9.3 of that Directive re water gives countries flexibility in how

they deal with Water Directive ..It states "NOTHING in this Article
shall prevent the funding of particular preventive or remedial
measures in order to achieve the objectives of the Directive"
Article 9.4 is where countries can have an exemption also.
The River Basin Management Plan is a plan Ireland submits to EU
detailing how they will deal with the Directive...Our last one was
delayed for nearly 2 years.
Next one which is from 2018-2021 I thought wouldn't be drawn up
until after Committee on Future funding of water finished their
report and after Dail vote BUT Indo said RBMP was published this
week!
Ireland can use Article 9.3&Article 9.4 and stress that our
"established practice of paying for water through specific taxation
measures such as car tax and vat when legislation was introduced
to increase same after last failed attempt to introduce water
charges!
If we can fight re Apple case to EACH we can also fight re this
especially as 2/3rds TDs elected to Dail on basis of pledges to
abolish water charges...The power is supposed to be from the
people and people have spoken
What happened in 2009? Ireland had "a special exemption" in

relation to water until Alan Kelly signed it away a few years ago.
How can the EU charge a fine for water that was paid through
general taxation (an excepted means of payment) all along. So Fine
Gael are basically saying that we are being threatened to pay fines
for something we already paid for - and Fine Gael have no problem
with that
That Article 9.4 is still available in Directive re exemption from
domestic water charges.Other countries have used it.
Ireland in its River Basin Management Plan states how they will deal
with full Directive.This latest plan was delayed because of fight
against water charges.
The next River Basin Management Plan is from 2018-2021 which
they have to present to the EU.
This Water Committee on Future funding of water hasn't concluded
yet BUT I was shocked to read in the Indo few days ago that the
River Basin Management Plan 2018-2021 had been published
already...What is going on?
By the sounds of it they have already signed the paper work and are
trying to cover it up.
Ireland Set to Take Fight Over Apple Tax Bill
to EU Court But not Set to Fight Irish Water
to EU Court
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-08/ireland-set-to-
take-fight-over-apple-tax-bill-to-eu-court
Ireland to join Apple in fight against EU tax ruling

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-apple-
taxavoidance-ireland-idUSKCN1180WR
EXTRACT
""The advice says that member states have wide
"established practice" is and add it was an established
practice not to have domestic water charges when the
water directive was adopted""
Fianna Fil
publishes advice on
banning water
charges
Updated / Thursday, 2 Mar 2017 18:10
Top social icons, these are repeated at foot of article
Main Article Image

imprisonment.
charges.
content/uploads/2017/03/FF-Legal-Advice-Water.pdf
regarding water.
consumption.

2016.
principle."
content/uploads/2017/03/FF-Legal-Advice-
Water.pdf
Fianna Fil
Re: Whether Ireland can reintroduce a statutory
prohibition on domestic water charges in a manner which
is compatible with its obligations under European Union
Law
Date: 6th April 2016
These advices address the question as to whether the
State (Ireland) can rescind a decision to implement
domestic water charges and reintroduce a statutory
prohibition on such charges in a manner which is
compatible with its obligations under European Union Law
and in particular the Water Framework Directive1
(hereafter referred to as the WFD).
On 23 October 2000, Directive 2000/60/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council establishing a
framework for Community action in the field of water
policy was adopted. It was published in the Official Journal
of the European Communities on 22 December 20002 and
entered into force the same day3.
The WFD established a legal framework to protect and
restore clean water across Europe thereby ensuring its
long-term and sustainable use. It required Member States
to inter alia establish a programme of measures, including
economic instruments, to achieve its objectives. It did not,
however, require the harmonisation of the rules of
Member States concerning water.4
4. Article 9 of the WFD introduces the principle of cost
recovery for water services, including environmental and
resource costs, in accordance with the polluter pays
principle. Cost recovery is achieved through the prices
that the water service consumers have to pay to the
provider directly and through any tax, charge or levy that
is imposed on the service, and is borne by the consumer
directly or indirectly.5 Economic instruments are dealt with
in Article 9 of the WFD which is headed Recovery of costs
for water services.
1 Directive 2000/60/EC.
2 OJ L 327/1.
3 Article 25 of Water Framework Directive.
4 See Commission v Luxembourg C-32/05 and Commission
v Germany C-525/12
5 See Journal of Environmental Law, J Environmental Law
(2007) 19 (1): 29, 1 MARCH 2007, The Principle of Full Cost
Recovery in the EU-Water Framework DirectiveGenesis
and Content Full Cost Recovery in the EU-Water
Framework Directive, Herwig Unnerstall.
2
5. The term water services is defined in Article 2(38) as
all services which provide, for households, public
institutions or any economic activity: (a) abstraction,
impoundment, storage, treatment and distribution of
surface water or groundwater, (b) waste-water collection
and treatment facilities which subsequently discharge into
surface water.
6. Article 9(1) provides that Member States shall ensure by
2010 (a) that water- pricing policies provide adequate
incentives for users to use water resources efficiently and
(b) that the industrial, domestic and agricultural sectors
make an adequate contribution to the recovery of water
services.
7. The WFD does not define inter alia what is meant by
water pricing or adequate contribution. The European
Environment Agency, Assessment of cost recovery
through water pricing notes that prices in relation to
water services can be charged in many ways, namely
taxes, water tariffs and water charges.6
8. As a matter of law, Ireland has a wide discretion as to
the choice of form and method of implementing its
obligations under Article 9(1)7.
9. Article 9(4) of the WFD provides that a Member State
shall not be in breach of the Directive if it decides in
accordance with established practices not to apply the
principle of costs recovery for a given water-use activity,
where this does not compromise the purposes and the
achievement of the objectives of this Directive and where
the Member State reports the reasons for not fully
applying Article 9(1).
10. The WFD does not define inter alia what is meant by
established practices. Accordingly as a matter of law,
Ireland has a wide discretion as to the choice of form and
method of implementing its obligations under Article
9(4).
11. The application and interpretation of Article 9(4) (and
the nature of the derogation therein) is informed by key
principles which subtend Article 9 generally, such as:
6 See page 8, European Environment Agency,
Assessment of cost recovery through water pricing
Technical report No 16/2013
7See Procureur du Roi v Royer [1977] ICR 314,
Commission of the European Communities v Italian
Republic [C-92/79], Commission v Luxembourg C-32/05
and Commission v Germany (C-525/12).
3
(i) cost recovery is not necessarily applicable to all
activities and even where such activities could in and of
themselves - be liable to undermining the WFDs
objectives;
(ii) it does not mean that any lack of pricing of those
activities would necessarily jeopardize the attainment of
such objectives;
(iii) Partially suspended cost recovery is, in principle,
allowed and does not necessarily imply that attainment of
the objectives of the WFD have been jeopardised;
(iv) Member States have a very wide discretion/margin of
appreciation.
12. Ireland was obliged to bring into force the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with the WFD by 22 December 2003 at the latest.
It did so by means of the European Communities (Water
Policy) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 722 of 2003).8
13. Article 9 of the WFD is implemented into Irish law by
Article 11 of S.I. No. 722 of 2003. Article 11(2) provided
that the established practices referred to in Article 9(4)
of the Water Framework Directive included the provisions
of section 12 of the Local Government (Financial
Provisions) Act 1997 (No. 29 of 1997). Section 12
prohibited domestic water charges. This prohibition was
retained by section 105(1) of the Water Services Act
2007.9
8 Iris Oifigiil, 30 January 2004.
9 In the Report from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council on the Implementation by
Ireland of the Directive (2012), the Commission noted
(beginning at paragraph 12.6) as follows:
Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)
A narrow approach to water services is used and defined
in Water Services Act, 2007 as all services, including the
provision of water intended for human consumption, which
provide storage, treatment or distribution of surface
water, groundwater or water supplied by a water services
authority, or waste water collection, storage, treatment or
disposal.
Ireland notified to the Commission that the Irish
authorities agree to amend national measures
implementing the Water Framework Directive in a manner
that accords with the Commission interpretation of water
services. This change in policy will be reflected in the
second-cycle river basin management plans.
Water uses include households, industry and agriculture.
4
14. It appears that domestic water charges were
previously removed in Ireland not as a legal requirement
but as a response to the then current economic and
financial crisis.10 Section 28 of the Water Services Act
2013 removed the statutory prohibition on domestic water
charges. Article 11 of S.I. No. 722 of 2003 was amended
by the European Union (Water Policy) Regulations 2014
(S.I. No. 350 of 2014) which substituted Article 11 with a
new article which contained no reference to the
established practices referred to in Article 9(4) of the
WFD.
15. As stated earlier, Article 9(4) of WFD provides that the
Member States may, subject to certain conditions, opt not
to proceed with the recovery of costs for a given water-
use activity, where this does not compromise the purposes
and the achievement of the objectives of that directive.
Thus partially suspended cost recovery is, in principle,
allowed and does not necessarily imply that attainment of
the objectives of the WFD have been jeopardised.
16. Ireland can thus suspend and/or remove the provision
of water charges for domestic households where such
action does not compromise the purposes and the
achievement of the objectives of the WFD. Ireland would
however, in accordance with Article 9(4), have to report
the reasons for not fully applying paragraph 1, second
sentence of Article 9(1), in the River Basin Management
Plan (RBMP). Relevant to the foregoing, it is noted that a
press release from the Department of Environment,
Community and Local Government dated 18th November
2015 stated, inter alia, that the Draft River Basin
Management Plans covering the period 2016 to 2021 will
be presented for
Cost recovery is actually only calculated for the industrial
and household sectors. However only industrial
contribution to cost recovery can be seen as adequate
(contribution of households is zero). Detailed guidance on
the calculation of cost recovery (including, inter alia,
capital, operation and maintenance costs) was provided to
all local authorities following the adoption of the
Governments water pricing policy. The policy applies to
each local authority and there are no exemptions. The
guidance also explicitly required that any environmental
costs and the costs of any borrowing or loans should be
included in the user charges.
It is reported that the polluter-pays-principle has been
used in the cost recovery process, but it is not explained
how it is used, or to what extent it is used for non-
household customers, who are actually exempted from
water pricing.
No charge is made for water to household users, so there
are no incentives in place to use water efficiently. For non-
household customers (business and agriculture), a charge
is made and metering is required. This policy (in respect of
domestic customers) has now changed. The Government
has decided that domestic water charges will be
introduced and that the charging system will be based on
metered consumption. A programme of domestic metering
is to commence later 2012.
The provisions of Article 9(4) on flexibility have not been
used.
Efforts for coordination of Article 9 issues have been made
between RBDs within Ireland, but no cooperation with the
UK in the International RBDs has been reported.
10 See page 9, European Environment Agency,
Assessment of cost recovery through water pricing
Technical report No 16/2013.
5
further public consultation at the end of 201611 which
suggests that such RBMPs are not finalised and are
capable of being revised/amended.
17. Moreover, it appears that the upgrading or repair of
the water services systems is not contingent upon or
necessarily connected to the recovery of costs under
Article 9(1) insofar as Article 9(3) provides that nothing in
Article 9 shall prevent the funding of particular preventive
or remedial measures in order to achieve the objectives of
the WFD.
18. In summary (and while these matters are expanded
upon in more detail in these advices) it is our opinion that
it is open to Ireland to seek to prohibit or suspend
domestic water charges on inter alia the following basis:
a. The WFD is a framework directive which does not seek
to achieve complete harmonisation of the rules of the
Member States concerning water;
b. Article 9 of the WFD does not per se impose the
generalised pricing obligation in respect of all activities
relating to water use;
c. The objectives pursued by the WFD do not necessarily
imply that the definition of water services contained in
Article 2(38)(a) of the WFD must be interpreted as
meaning that they subject all activities to which they refer
to the principle of recovery of costs contained in Article 9
of the WFD;
d. There is no specific requirement in Article 9 of the WFD
for cost recovery to rely on individual consumption;
e. The measures for the recovery of the costs of water
services are one instrument, among others available to
the Member States, for qualitative management of water
in order to achieve rational water use;
f. The absence of pricing for water service activities will
not necessarily jeopardise the attainment of the objectives
of the WFD;
g. Article 9(4) of the WFD provides that a Member State
shall not be in breach of the Directive if it decides in
principle of costs recovery for a given water-use activity,
where this does not compromise the purposes and the
achievement of the objectives of
11 Said Press Release is available at:
http://www.environ.ie/water/water-quality/river-basin-
management- plans/public-consultation-significant-water-
management
6
this Directive and where the Member State reports the
reasons for not fully
applying Article 9(1);
h. The application of Article 9(4) is informed by certain
principles, including that
cost recovery is not necessarily applicable to all activities
and even where such activities could in and of
themselves - be liable to undermining the WFDs
objectives; it does not mean that any lack of pricing of
those activities would necessarily jeopardize the
attainment of such objectives; partially suspended cost
recovery is, in principle, allowed and does not necessarily
imply that attainment of the objectives of the WFD have
been jeopardised;
i. Member States have a very wide discretion in relation to
Article 9;
j. Ireland can avail of the established practice exemption
in Article 9(4) as (i) it is for Ireland to determine what an
established practice is and (ii) it was an established
practice not to have domestic water charges when the
Water
Directive was adopted.
II PRELIMINARY MATTERS
(i) The Type of Legal Act
19. The WFD is a directive and as such is a legal act of the
European Union. It is through legal acts that the European
institutions exercise the Unions competences.12
20. There are five different types of legal act. These are
regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and
opinions. Regulations, directives and decisions are legally
binding. Regulations have general application, are binding
in their entirety and are directly applicable in all Member
States. Directives are binding, as to the result to be
achieved, upon each Member State to which they are
addressed, but leave to the national authorities the choice
of form and methods. Decisions are binding in their
entirety. A decision which specifies those to whom it is
addressed shall be binding only on them.
Recommendations and opinions are not legally binding.13
12 Part 6, Title 1, Chapter 2, Section 1 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. 13 Article 288 of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
7
21. The freedom that Member States enjoy in relation to
the choice of form and method in the transposition of
directives is not unlimited. In Procureur du Roi v. Royer
[1977] ICR 314, the European Court of Justice held that the
freedom left to the Member States as to the choice of form
and method does not affect their obligation to choose the
most appropriate forms and methods to ensure the
effectiveness of the directives.14 In Commission of the
European Communities v. Italian Republic [C- 92/79] the
European Court of Justice held that Member States are
obliged to ensure the full and exact application of the
provisions of any directive.15
(ii) The Competency
22. The categories and competences of the European
Union that the European institutions exercise by means of
legal acts are set out in the Treaties.16 Competences may
be exclusive or shared. When the Treaties confer on the
European Union exclusive competence in a specific area,
only the Union may legislate and adopt legally binding
acts, the Member States being able to do so only if so
empowered by the Union or for the implementation of
Union acts.17 When the Treaties confer on the Union a
competence shared with the Member States in a specified
area, the Union and the Member States may legislate and
adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States
shall exercise their competence to the extent that the
Union has not exercised its competence. The Member
States shall again exercise their competence to the extent
that the Union has decided to cease exercising its
competence.18
23. Article 4(2)(e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union provides that the environment is an area
of shared competence.
24. Article 191(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union provides that Union policy on the
environment is contribute to pursuit of the objectives of
preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the
environment, in prudent and rational utilisation of natural
resources. Article 191(2) provides that it is to be based on
the precautionary principle and on the principles that
preventive action should be
14 Paragraph 75
15 Paragraph 1
16 Part 1, Title 1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union
17 Article 2(1), Part 1, Title 1 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union 18 Article 2(2), Part 1,
Title 1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union
8
III
25.
26.
taken, environmental damage should, as a priority, be
rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.
THE EUROPEAN BACKGROUND
European Water policy and law is approximately 40 years
old. It was initially concerned with setting standards for
drinking water and limiting pollution.19
In 1988, the Frankfurt Ministerial Seminar on Water Policy
reviewed existing legislation and highlighted the need for
European action on ecological quality in Community
surface waters. In 1991, the Hague Ministerial Seminar on
Groundwater recognised the need for action to avoid long-
term deterioration of freshwater quality and quantity and
called for a programme of actions to be implemented by
the year 2000 aiming at sustainable management and
protection of freshwater resources. In 1992 and 1995, the
Council requested an action programme for groundwater
and a revision as part of an overall policy on freshwater
protection.
In 1995, the Council invited the Commission to come
forward with a proposal for a new framework directive
establishing the basic principles of sustainable water
policy in the European Union. In 1996 the Council, the
Committee of the Regions, the Economic and Social
Committee, and the European Parliament, all requested
the Commission to come forward with a proposal for a
Council Directive establishing a framework for a European
water policy. The Commission issued a proposal for a
Council Directive establishing a framework for a European
water policy in 1997.20
THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE WATER FRAMEWORK
DIRECTIVE
The WFD commences with fifty-three recitals setting out
the rationale for its adoption. They record inter alia:
IV
28.
27.
19 See generally Kramer, EU Environmental Law (Sweet &
Maxwell 8th edition 2015), chapter 7 20 [1997] OJ C184/20
9
that water is not a commercial product like any other
but, rather, a heritage which must be protected, defended
and treated as such;21
as set out in the Treaties, the Community policy on the
environment is to contribute to pursuit of the objectives of
preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the
environment, in prudent and rational utilisation of natural
resources, and to be based on the precautionary principle
and on the principles that preventive action should be
taken, environmental damage should, as a priority, be
rectified at source and that the polluter should pay;22
The use of economic instruments by Member States
may be appropriate as part of a programme of measures.
The principle of recovery of the costs of water services,
including environmental and resource costs associated
with damage or negative impact on the aquatic
environment should be taken into account in accordance
with, in particular, the polluter-pays principle. An economic
analysis of water services based on long-term forecasts of
supply and demand for water in the river basin district will
be necessary for this purpose.23
29. Article 1 sets out its purpose and scope.
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework
for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional
waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:
(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and
enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with
regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and
wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term
protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the
aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures
for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and
losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-
out of
21 Recital 1. 22 Recital 11. 23 Recital 38.
10
discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous
substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of
groundwater
and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and
droughts and
thereby contributes to:
the provision of the sufficient supply of good quality
surface water and groundwater as needed for
sustainable, balanced and equitable water use,
a significant reduction in pollution of groundwater,
the protection of territorial and marine waters, and
achieving the objectives of relevant international
agreements, including those which aim to prevent and
eliminate pollution of the marine environment, by
Community action under Article 16(3) to cease or phase
out discharges, emissions and losses of priority hazardous
substances, with the ultimate aim of achieving
concentrations in the marine environment near
background values for naturally occurring substances and
close to zero for man-made synthetic substances.
30. Article 2 sets out the relevant definitions. Article 2(38)
defines water services as follows:
...Water services means all services which provide, for
households, public institutions or any economic activity:
(a) abstraction, impoundment, storage, treatment and
distribution of surface water or groundwater,
(b) waste-water collection and treatment facilities which
subsequently discharge into surface water.
31. Article 5 requires Member States to carry out an
economic analysis of water use.
1. Each Member State shall ensure that for each river
basin district or for the portion of an international river
basin district falling within its territory:
an analysis of its characteristics, 11
a review of the impact of human activity on the status
of surface waters and on groundwater, and
an economic analysis of water use
is undertaken according to the technical specifications set
out in Annexes II and III and that it is completed at the
latest four years after the date of entry into force of this
Directive.
2. The analyses and reviews mentioned under paragraph 1
shall be reviewed, and if necessary updated at the latest
13 years after the date of entry into force of this Directive
and every six years thereafter.
32. Article 9 deals with the recovery of costs for water
services:
1. Member States shall take account of the principle of
recovery of the costs of water services, including
environmental and resource costs, having regard to the
economic analysis conducted according to Annex III, and
in accordance in particular with the polluter pays principle.
Member States shall ensure by 2010
that water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives
for users
to use water resources efficiently, and thereby contribute
to the
environmental objectives of this Directive,
an adequate contribution of the different water uses,
disaggregated into at least industry, households and
agriculture, to the recovery of the costs of water services,
based on the economic analysis conducted according to
Annex III and taking account of the polluter pays principle.
Member States may in so doing have regard to the social,
environmental and economic effects of the recovery as
well as the geographic and climatic conditions of the
region or regions affected.
2. Member States shall report in the river basin
management plans on the planned steps towards
implementing paragraph 1 which will contribute to
achieving the environmental objectives of this Directive
and on the contribution made by the various water uses to
the recovery of the costs of water services.
12
3. Nothing in this Article shall prevent the funding of
particular preventive or remedial measures in order to
achieve the objectives of this Directive.
4. Member States shall not be in breach of this Directive if
they decide in accordance with established practices not
to apply the provisions of paragraph 1, second sentence,
and for that purpose the relevant provisions of paragraph
2, for a given water-use activity, where this does not
compromise the purposes and the achievement of the
objectives of this Directive. Member States shall report the
reasons for not fully applying paragraph 1, second
sentence, in the river basin management plans.
33. Article 11 deals with the programme of measures
which must be undertaken by Member States to comply
with the objectives of the Water Framework Directive. It
provides inter alia:
1. Each Member State shall ensure the establishment for
each river basin district, or for the part of an international
river basin district within its territory, of a programme of
measures, taking account of the results of the analyses
required under Article 5, in order to achieve the objectives
established under Article 4. Such programmes of
measures may make reference to measures following from
legislation adopted at national level and covering the
whole of the territory of a Member State. Where
appropriate, a Member State may adopt measures
applicable to all river basin districts and/or the portions of
international river basin districts falling within its territory.
2. Each programme of measures shall include the basic
measures specified in paragraph 3 and, where necessary,
supplementary measures.
3. Basic measures are the minimum requirements to be
complied with and shall consist of:
...
(b) measures deemed appropriate for the purposes of
Article 9;
...
13
V
7. The programmes of measures shall be established at
the latest nine years after the date of entry into force of
this Directive and all the measures shall be made
operational at the latest 12 years after that date.
8. The programmes of measures shall be reviewed, and if
necessary updated at the latest 15 years after the date of
entry into force of this Directive and every six years
thereafter. Any new or revised measures established under
an updated programme shall be made operational within
three years of their establishment.
34. Annex III provides:
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The economic analysis shall contain enough information in
sufficient detail (taking account of the costs associated
with collection of the relevant data) in order to:
(a) make the relevant calculations necessary for taking
into account under Article 9 the principle of recovery of
the costs of water services, taking account of long term
forecasts of supply and demand for water in the river
basin district and, where necessary:
estimates of the volume, prices and costs associated
with water services, and
estimates of relevant investment including forecasts of
such investments;
(b) make judgements about the most cost-effective
combination of measures in respect of water uses to be
included in the programme of measures under Article 11
based on estimates of the potential costs of such
measures.
THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE WFD
14
35. The decision of the Court of Justice of the European
Union (CJEU) in European Commission v. Federal Republic
of Germany (Case C-525/12)24 is significant.
36. For example, Lindhout and Van Rijswick25, of Utrecht
University, suggest in relation to the Courts judgment in
C-525/12 that Article 9 of the WFD generally provides an
ample margin of discretion as to how far Member States
apply the cost recovery principle, and that infringement
can only be established on the grounds that the absence
of cost recovery instruments will effect a failure to
achieving the ultimate quality objectives set out in Article
4 WFD and further observe that:
...The Court judgment positions cost recovery as a
practically voluntary tool to be used by Member States at
least offering the Member States a huge margin of
appreciation. It is effectively up to the Member States, to
decide in how far or even whether cost recovery is a
measure to be applied for certain water uses or services.
They are not obliged to. Even if the objectives of the
directive are not attained, that does not mean that it is a
result from a lack of pricing...26
37. Thus, it is useful to consider some general
observations arising from the judgment before considering
how the Court addressed Article 9(4) of the WFD.
38. Firstly, the WFD is a framework directive for the
protection of all water bodies and, as such, does not
provide for complete harmonization of the rules of the
Member States. Arguably, the rationale of the CJEU in this
case reduces or limits the potential effectiveness of cost
recovery in the context of the overall management of
Member States river basins. In this context (i.e. in the
management of each river basin district) while Article
11(3)(b) of the WFD prescribed that measures relating to
the recovery of the costs for water services, such as those
provided for under Article 9 of the WFD,
24 The European Commission asked the CJEU to declare
that, by excluding certain water uses that should be
regarded as water services from the recovery of costs,
Germany had failed to fulfil its obligations arising from
Article 9 of the WFD. The case arose from enforcement
proceedings instigated by the EU Commission against
Germany pursuant to art.258 of the TFEU.
25 P.E. Lindhout and HFMW van Rijswick, The
effectiveness of the principle of recovery of the costs of
water services jeopardized by the European Court of
Justice-Annotations on the Judgment in C-525/12. Journal
for European Environmental & Planning Law 12 (2015) 80-
94. The authors argue that the decision of the CJEU limits
the potential effectiveness of the cost recovery provision
and present a number of arguments that would
underscore a more obligatory requirement for Member
States to take cost recovery into account.
26 Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law 12
(2015) 80 at 87. 15
were among the minimum requirements to be included in

such a programme, the CJEU determined that it was clear
that measures for the recovery of the costs of water
services were but just one of the instruments available to
the Member States for qualitative management of water in
order to achieve rational water use. The CJEU appear to
relate costs recovery to Article 11 and the programme of
measures referred to therein and also Article 4 dealing
with environmental objectives.
39. Secondly, Article 9 of the WFD provides a wide margin
of discretion/appreciation as to how far Member States
apply the cost recovery principle.
40. Thirdly, it is clearly the case, having regard to the
legislative history of the WFD and the nature of the
discretion given to Member States, that the intention of
the WFD (and Article 9 in particular) was not to impose a
blanket obligation27 or requirement of cost recovery in
all circumstances and in this regard we note that the CJEU
stated the following at paragraphs 44-45 and at
paragraphs 47-48 of its judgment:
41. At paragraphs 44-45, the Court stated:
...In the present case, it is clear from the wording of
Article 9 of Directive 2000/60 that the Member States are
to take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of
water services, including environmental and resource
costs, having regard to the economic analysis conducted
according to Annex III, and in accordance in particular with
the polluter-pays principle. Member States must inter alia
ensure that water-pricing policies
provide adequate incentives for users to use water
resources efficiently and thereby contribute to the
environmental objectives of Directive 2000/60. Article
2(38) of that directive defines water services as
comprising all services which provide, for households,
public institutions or any economic activity, both
abstraction, impoundment, storage, treatment and
distribution of surface water or groundwater, as well as
waste-water collection and treatment facilities which
27 See Erik Gawel, ECJ on Cost Recovery for Water
Services under Article 9 of the water Framework Directive:
Camera Locuta Causa non Finita. Journal for European
Environmental & Planning Law 12 (2015) 71-79.
16
Those provisions, which do not define the concept of
services, do not make it immediately clear whether the
EU legislature intended to make
any service relating to each of the activities listed in
Article 2(38)(a) of
Directive 2000/60, in addition to waste-water treatment
activities referred
to in Article 2(38)(b), subject to the principle of recovery
of costs, as maintained in essence by the Commission, or
only those services associated with the supply of water, by
requiring account to be taken of all the stages of that
activity, as listed in Article 2(38)(a), as well as those
associated with
waste-water treatment, as referred to in Article 2(38)(b),
as contended by the Federal Republic of Germany...
[Emphasis added]
42. At paragraphs 47-48, the Court stated:
...First of all, it is apparent from the travaux prparatoires
for Directive 2000/60, as summarised by the Advocate
General in points 68 and 69 of his Opinion, that the EU
legislature intended, on the one hand, to allow the
Member States to determine, on the basis of an economic
analysis, the measures to be adopted for the purposes of
the application of the principle of recovery of costs, whilst
on the other to promote the pricing of those costs, without
extending it to all services associated with water use, as
practices in the Member States varied widely, inter alia in
terms of pricing for water supply services and waste-water
treatment....
...Next, Directive 2000/60, in requiring in Article 9 that
Member States are to have regard to the principle of
recovery of the costs of water services and ensure that
water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives for
users to use water resources efficiently and thereby
contribute to the environmental objectives of that
directive, does not per se impose a generalised pricing
obligation in respect of all activities relating to water use.
[Emphasis added]
43. Fourthly, the CJEU held that while the various water
services defined in Article 2(38) of the WFD28 may have
an impact of the state of bodies of water and were liable
to undermine the achievement of its objectives, the court
held that it could not be
28 Namely all services which provide, for households,
public institutions or any economic activity: (a)
abstraction, impoundment, storage, treatment and
distribution of surface water or groundwater; (b) waste-
water collection and treatment facilities which
17
inferred therefrom that, in any event, the absence of
pricing for such activities will necessarily jeopardise the
attainment of those objectives.29 Importantly, the CJEU
stated in that regard and in the context of Article 9(4)30 at
paragraphs 57 and 58 of its judgment that:
...Article 9(4)...provides that the Member States may,
subject to certain conditions, opt not to proceed with the
recovery of costs for a given water- use activity, where
this does not compromise the purposes and the
achievement of the objectives of that directive.
It follows that the objectives pursued by Directive 2000/60
do not necessarily imply that Article 2(38)(a) thereof must
be interpreted as meaning that they all subject all
activities to which they refer to the principle of recovery of
costs... [Emphasis added]
44.It is therefore of some significance to observe how the
Court interpreted the provisions of Article 9 of the WFD
generally prior to its consideration of Article 9(4).
45. To recap31, the CJEU in case C-525/12 suggested that
cost recovery was only one of the instruments for Member
States to strive for rational water use; the environmental
objectives in the WFD do not necessarily imply that cost
recovery should be applicable to all the activities referred
to in Article 2(38); the Court emphasised the paramountcy
of individual Member States wide discretion.
46. Thus, we are of the view that Article 9(4) (and the
nature of the derogation therein) must be viewed in this
context, namely that cost recovery is not necessarily
applicable to all activities and even where such activities
could in and of themselves - be liable to undermining the
WFDs objectives, it does not mean that any lack of pricing
of
29 See paragraph 56 of the judgment.
30 Article 9(4) of the WFD provides that Member States
shall not be in breach of this Directive if they decide in
provisions of paragraph 1, second sentence, and for that
purpose the relevant provisions of paragraph 2, for a given
water-use activity, where this does not compromise the
purposes and the achievement of the objectives of this
Directive. Member States shall report the reasons for not
fully applying paragraph 1, second sentence, in the river
basin management plans...
31 Paraphrasing Lindhout and Van Rijswick opp. cit.
18

attainment of such objectives, and, finally, the importance
attached to the Member States discretion.
47. If the corollary of the Court minimising or reducing an
obligation to apply cost recovery is the consequential
lessening of the importance of the derogation provision in
Article 9(4), it is we suggest- more difficult (though not,
of course, impossible) for any potential or putative
infringement proceedings to prove to the requisite
standard that a Member State-such as Ireland-has not
applied the derogation clause correctly in circumstances
where, for example, water charges were suspended for a
period or prohibited but the suspension or prohibition did
not effect a failure to meet the objectives in Article 4 of
the WFD.
48. Generally the jurisprudence of the CJEU (and
previously the European Court of Justice (ECJ)) provides
that derogation clauses are to be interpreted strictly and
in such a scenario we would suggest that the judgment of
the Court in C-525/12 arguably suggests that infringement
may only be established on the grounds that the absence
of cost recovery instruments would effect a failure to
achieve objectives such as those set out in Article 4 of the
WFD.
49. In examining the provisions of Article 9(4) (and even if
it is accepted that the significance of same is somewhat
diluted arising from the judgment of the CJEU in C-
525/12), in the event that Ireland was to introduce a
regime where cost recovery for households was
suspended or removed, it is important to recall that Article
9 of the WFD was initially implemented into Irish law by
Article 11 of the (national) European Communities (Water
Policy) Regulations 2003 in S.I. No. 722 of 2003. Article
11(2) S.I. No. 722 of 2003 provided that the established
practices referred to in Article 9(4) of the WFD included
the provisions of section 12 of the Local Government
(Financial Provisions) Act 1997 (No. 29 of 1997). Section
12 prohibited domestic water charges. This prohibition
was retained by section 105(1) of the Water Services Act
2007.
19
50. In this regard and in assessing the reference to
established practices in the context of Article 9(4), we
are of the view that it is important to have regard to the
way in this issue has been addressed in Ireland to date32.
51. As mentioned, the then Article 11 of the European
Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003 contained in
S.I. No. 722/2003 dealt specifically with cost recovery
and at the time provided that:
(1) The relevant local authorities shall-
(a) In accordance with Article 9 of the Directive, take
account of the
principle of recovery of the costs of water services
including environmental and resource costs, having regard
to the economic analysis carried out according to article 7,
and in accordance in particular with the polluter pays
principle,
(b)Ensure that water-pricing policies and practices are in
place in compliance with Article 9 of the Directive, not
later than 31 December 2009, and
(c) Comply with any direction or guidance which may be
given by the Minister for the purposes of this article.
(2) For the purposes of this article, established practices
referred to in Article 9(4) of the Directive shall include the
provisions of section 12 of the Local Government (Financial
Provisions) Act 1997.
32 The Commission view would appear to be that any
established practices had to have been in existence at the
time of the adoption of the Directive. On 21 June 2010 in a
reply to a parliamentary question posed by Alan Kelly MEP,
the Commission stated that: Article 9(1) of the Water
Framework Directive 2000/60/EC(1), requires Member
States to ensure, by 2010, that a water pricing policy is
established based on the principles of cost recovery and
polluter pays. The water pricing policy shall also provide
adequate incentives for users to use water resources
efficiently and therefore contribute to achieving the
objectives of the directive. The purpose of the Water
Framework Directive specified in Article 1 includes the
promotion of the sustainable water use based on the long-
term protection of available water resources. The
environmental objectives are set out in Article 4 and
include the prevention of deterioration of water bodies and
the achievement of good status by 2015. The provision in
Article 9(4) relating to the need to ensure that the
purposes and the achievement of the objectives of the
directive is not compromised relates to those objectives in
Articles 1 and 4. Article 9(4) provides the possibility for
Member States not to apply the provisions of Article 9(1)
to a given water-use activity, where this is an established
practice at the time of adoption of the directive and where
this does not compromise the purposes and the
achievement of the objectives of the directive. The use of
Article 9(4) is therefore subject to strict conditions. The
economic and social effects of a particular form of water
pricing on households will depend on the type of water
pricing and the socioeconomic profile of the households. It
is for the Member States to decide whether they have
regard to these aspects on the basis of an assessment of
the effects of the water pricing policy on water users.
However, as regards Article 9(1), Member States who
wished to implement a flat rate would need to justify that
it fulfils the requirements in Article 9(1), in particular with
respect to whether it provides an adequate incentive for
users to use water efficiently.
20
52. The reference at the time to ...[f]or the purposes of
this article, established practices referred to in Article
9(4) of the Directive shall include the provisions of section
12 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act
1997... is significant.
53. Firstly, we have already pointed out that consequent
upon the decision of the CJEU in C-525/12, cost recovery is
not necessarily applicable to all activities and even where
such activities could be liable to undermining the WFDs
objectives, it does not mean that any lack of pricing of
attainment of such objectives. Further, (as emphasised
earlier) the decision of the CJEU in C- 525/12 highlights
Member States discretion.
54. Secondly, the use of the word includes is generally
interpreted to refer to a non- exhaustive definition.
55. Thirdly, the then national implementing regulations
provide in Article 11 that the phrase established
practices referred to in Article 9(4) of the WFD shall
include the provisions of section 12 of the Local
Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1997.
56. In interpreting this provision, it will be recalled that a
central principle of EU law is that the Member State
(national or domestic) courts are required to interpret
national law in light of directives, such as the WFD. Thus,
from the perspective of the interpretive obligations of Irish
domestic courts, it is for the national court to interpret and
apply legislation adopted for the implementation of a
directive (here the WFD) in conformity with the
requirements of EU law. In our view, in interpreting this
provision it is important to have regard to inter alia the
wording of the provision, the objective of the provision and
its context.
57. In assessing the principles applicable to the
interpretation of European directives the CJEU looks at the
wording and the context of the directive. In its
jurisprudence the CJEU has generally emphasised the
teleological approach in the interpretation of directives - to
secure the objectives of the directive by favouring an
interpretation
21
which best serves the purpose or effectiveness of the
directive33: in Case C 84/95 Ticare AS v. Minister for
Transport, Energy and Communications [1996] ECR I-
03953 the Court stated that in interpreting a provision of
Community law it is necessary to consider its wordings, its
consent and its aims. In Murphy v. Bord Telecom ireann
[1989] I.L.R.M. 53, 60 Keane J. (as he then was) described
the teleological approach as one which looks to the effect
of the legislation rather than the actual words used by the
legislature. The preamble or recital to a directive may
also be relevant in setting the context and background to
the directive and may assist in interpreting the operative
provisions of the directive.
58. Thus, in our view, it would not appear appropriate to
interpret the phrase established practice as used in
Article 9(4) in isolation. Rather, it should be interpreted in
the light of the objective of the WFD as a whole. Equally it
is not appropriate to take an over literal approach. Thus
the phase must be understood in light of the matters
which have been adumbrated above, including for
example, the principles which we have identified as arising
from the decision of the CJEU in case C-525/12 in the
context of the objectives of the WFD. In this regard it can
be recalled that in Case C-525/12, the CJEU referred to the
objectives of the WFD in the following terms:
...As evidenced by recital 19 in the preamble to Directive
2000/60, it aims at maintaining and improving the aquatic
environment in the European Union. This purpose is
primarily concerned with the quality of the waters
concerned. Control of quantity is an ancillary element in
securing good water quality and therefore measures on
quantity, serving the objective of ensuring good quality,
should also be established...
59. This approach is also supported, we suggest, in
various decisions of the European Court of Justice.
60. For example in Cases C533/12 P and C536/12 P
Socit nationale maritime Corse- Mditerrane v. Corsica
Ferries France SAS, 4 September 2014, in the context of
state aid, the Court observed that:
33 See Dodd, Statutory Interpretation in Ireland, 14.10
14.12 22
....So far as concerns SNCMs criticism that the General

Court failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons, in that
it did not define the terms sufficiently well-established
practice or settled practice, it must be stated, as the
Advocate General did in point 62 of his Opinion, that those
terms are clear and refer to a factual assessment, and that
it is easy to see that only one or a few examples do not
constitute a sufficiently well-established practice or a
settled practice...
61. In Case C229/09 Rechtsanwaltssoziett Lovells v.
Bayer CropScience AG, 17 June 2010, Advocate General
stated:
...it is apparent from information provided to the Court
that the established practice of numerous Member State
authorities competent to grant supplementary protection
certificates for plant protection products was to grant such
certificates on the basis of provisional marketing
authorisations issued in accordance with Article 8(1) of
Directive 91/414. In addition, it follows from the decision
to refer in the present case that the referring court, too, in
its capacity as a court dealing with appeals brought
against decisions taken by the DPMA, approved that
practice and quashed the decision of the DPMA to
abandon that practice...
62.In the context of age discrimination, in Case C45/09,
Gisela Rosenbladt v. Oellerking Gebudereinigungsges.
mbH, 12 October 2010, questions referred to the Court
included:
...Does a collective agreement that permits an employer
to end an employment relationship at a specific fixed age
(in this case: 65), contravene the prohibition of age
discrimination laid down in Article 1 and Article 2(1) of
[Directive 2000/78] if, according to established practice in
place for several decades in the Member State, clauses of
this type have consistently applied to the employment
relationships of nearly all workers, regardless of the
economic, social and demographic situation and the
situation actually prevailing on the employment
market ?...
23
63. This was in the context of Article 2(1) of Directive
2000/78 which said that ...(b) indirect discrimination shall
be taken to occur where an apparently neutral provision,
criterion or practice would put persons having a particular
religion or belief, a particular disability, a particular age, or
a particular sexual orientation at a particular
disadvantage.
64. In Case C-14/04 Abdelkader Dellas Confdration
gnrale du travail v. Secrtariat gnral du
gouvernement 12 July 2005, in the context of the
protection and safety of works, Advocate General Colomer
at para. 26 stated:
...The third paragraph refers to time for changing clothes,
while the fourth paragraph provides for the establishment
of a period equivalent to the statutory working time in
occupations and for specific posts involving periods of
inactivity and states that such periods may be
remunerated in accordance with established practice or
collective agreements...
65. These decisions would suggest that whether a matter
is an established practice is a factual question; that an
established practice does not necessarily require any
particular legal status or form, such as for example being
contained in a legislative provision or agreement; and
consists of some demonstrable general application of the
practice in question.
66. In this regard it is important to note the legislative
chronology both prior to and after Article 11 of the
European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003 in
the assessment of the phrase established practices. For
example, section 65(A) of the Public Health (Ireland) Act
1878 as inserted by section 7 of the Local Government
(Sanitary Services) Act 1962 provided for the payment of
water charges by what were in effect non-urban
consumers (as per the reference therein to any charge
fixed by an urban sanitary authority).
67. Some 21 years later, this was extended to all
consumers by section 8 of the Local Government
(Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Act 1983 but the decision
whether or not to levy such charges was a decision for
Local Authorities which were given additional
24
powers some 12 years later in the Local Government
(Delimitation of Water Supply Disconnection Powers) Act
1995.
68. Thus the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No.
2) Act 1983 (supported by the Local Government
(Financial Provisions) Act 2000) provided inter alia for
service charges. Not surprisingly this issue was
extremely controversial and highlighted the perennial
difficulty with local government in Ireland, namely the
division in powers and functions between the Elected
Members, on the one hand, and the Management or
Executive of a local authority, on the other hand. For
example, initially the making of service charges was an
executive function for the then Manager (now referred to
as the Chief Executive) but consequent upon the County
Management (Reserved Functions) Order 1985 contained
in S.I. No. 341 of 1985 this became a decision for the
Elected Members. This 1983 Act also provided for
ministerial control and waivers.
69.Insofar as water charges were concerned, section 8 of
the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No.2) Act,
1983 amended section 65A of the Public Health (Ireland)
Act, 1878 (which, as referred to earlier, had been inserted
by section 7 of the Local Government (Sanitary Services)
Act, 1962) and provided inter alia that a sanitary authority
could make charges for water supplied and in such
circumstances payment was to be made by way of
instalment.
70. However, and as referred to in Article 11(2) S.I. No.
722 of 2003, some fourteen years later section 12(2) of
the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act further
amended section 65A of the 1878 Act (which, as referred
to earlier, had been inserted by section 7 of the Local
Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1962 and amended
by section 8 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions)
(No. 2) Act, 1983 and sections 2 and 3 of the Local
Government (Delimitation of Water Supply Disconnection
Powers) Act, 1995) and provided for the removal of the
power of local authorities to make charges for supply of
water for domestic purposes.
71. As referred to earlier, the WFD was initially transposed
into Irish Law by the European Communities (Water Policy)
Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 722/2003). Article 11 of the
2003 Regulations was substituted by Article 6 of the
European Union
25
(Water Policy) Regulations 2014 (S.I. No. 350 of 2014).
Article 11 of the 2003 Regulations, as substituted by
Article 6 of the 2014 Regulations, provides:
...6. The principal Regulations are amended by
substituting for Article 11 the following:
The Minister shall, in consultation with the Committee-
(a) in relation to a river basin district, carry out an
economic analysis of water use in accordance with the
requirements of Article 5 of the Directive,
(b) put in place arrangements to take account of the
principle of recovery of the costs of water services,
including environmental and resource costs in accordance
with the requirements of Article 9 of the Directive and in
particular with the polluter pays principle, and
(c) ensure that water-pricing policies and practices are in
place in compliance with Article 9 of the Directive....
72. As observed earlier, this new article contains no
reference to the established practices referred to in
Article 9(4) of the WFD.
73. The prohibition on charging for domestic water use
and supply was retained in section 105 of the Water
Services Act 2007 - which originally provided that a water
services authority could not charge for water supplied to
or discharged by domestic households. Section 105(4) of
the Water Services Act 2007 also provided for a waiver
scheme for non-domestic customers if the water services
authority is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so on
grounds of personal hardship or quality of water
supplied.34
74. Again, as mentioned earlier, this prohibition on
charging for household water supplies has now been
deleted by section 28 of the Water Services Act 2013. The
functions of water services authorities under section 105
of the 2007 Act have been transferred to
34 Water Services Act 2007 s.105, as amended by s.28 of
the Water Services Act 2013. See D. Conaghan, Water
Policy, Water Regulations and Water Rights: Part 1 (2012)
19(1) I.P.E.L.J. 3.
26
Bord Gis ireann and Irish Water. All other functions of
the water services authorities under the 2007 Act are also
transferred to Bord Gis ireann and Irish Water, to be
performed in the same manner as they would be
performed by a water services authority.
75. Section 29 of the Water Services Act 2013 deleted
s.4(1)(a) and s.4(1B) of the Local Government (Financial
Provisions) (No.2) Act 1983 (which had been inserted
bys.12(3) of the Local Government (Financial Provisions)
Act 1997), and thus removed the statutory prohibition on
charging households for water. Part 3 of the Water
Services (No. 2) Act 2013 provides for water charges.
Section 21 of the Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013 confers
Irish Water with the power to charge for water services
provided by it.
76. In the event that Ireland seeks to revert to a situation
of not having water charges, whether by removal or
suspension, it is in our view important to set out the full
context of its established practice (as above) for the
water-use activity in question. Article 9(4) of the WFD
provides for flexibility and affords Member States
discretion. Of course, in doing so Article 9(4) requires that
Member States should show that the purposes and
achievement of the WFDs objectives are not being
compromised.
77. It will be recalled that Article 9(4) provides that
Member States shall not be in breach of the WFD if they
decide in accordance with established practices not to
apply the provisions of paragraph 1, second sentence, and
for that purpose the relevant provisions of paragraph 2, for
a given water-use activity, where this does not
compromise the purposes and the achievement of the
objectives of this Directive and Member States are obliged
to report the reasons for not fully applying paragraph 1,
second sentence, in the river basin management plans.
78. In its judgment in C-525/12, the CJEU interpreted this
as meaning that Article 9(4) of the WFD provides that the
Member States may, subject to certain conditions, opt not
to proceed with the recovery of costs for a given water-use
activity, where this does not compromise the purposes
and the achievement of the objectives of that directive.
27
79.The issue under consideration in this case concerns
households or what are characterized as domestic water
charges. As per Article 9(4) of the WFD, the reasons for
Ireland deciding not to fully apply paragraph 1, second
sentence35 are also linked to the further requirement to
set out an explanation for not doing so in the River Basin
Management Plans. In this regard, Gawel36 (while critical
of the ECJ judgment in C- 525/12) has emphasised the
word fully and has observed in the context of Germany
that:
...[t]he unanimous view taken in the literature is that
Germany cannot invoke Article 9(4) WFD at all at present,
because established practices must legitimise
dispensations, generally applied as a concession to
Ireland, where drinking water was previously supplied free
of charge. Fulfilment of the objectives must therefore be
guaranteed elsewhere and foregoing cost recovery
policies fully according to paragraph 1, sub-para. 2
ultimately also has to be justified in writing. However, the
ECJ once again uses Article 9(4) WFD as evidence to
establish that partially suspended cost recovery is, in
principle, allowed by the European legislator and does not
necessarily imply that attainment of the objectives of the
Directive has been jeopardised...
80. Further in this regard, the judgment of the CJEU in C-
525/12, at paragraphs 57 to 59 (and prior to dismissing
the Commissions case), while acknowledging that there
may be situations in the future which may involve other
grounds of complaint, supports the adoption of a position
which effects the suspension (and equally, in our view, the
removal) of the recovery of costs to households water-use
activity in circumstances, of course, where the attainment
of the objectives of the Directive are not jeopardized:
...In that regard, Article 9(4) of Directive 2000/60 provides
that the Member States may, subject to certain conditions,
opt not to proceed with the recovery of costs for a given
water-use activity, where this does not compromise the
purposes and the achievement of the objectives of that
directive.
35 Member States shall ensure by 2010 an adequate
contribution of the different water uses, disaggregated
into at least industry, households and agriculture, to the
recovery of the costs of water services, based on the
economic analysis conducted according to Annex III and
taking account of the polluter-pays principle.
36 ibid, pp. 76-77.
28
It follows that the objectives pursued by Directive 2000/60

do not necessarily imply that Article 2(38)(a) thereof must
be interpreted as meaning that they all subject all
activities to which they refer to the principle of recovery of
costs, as maintained in essence by the Commission.
In those circumstances, the fact that the Federal Republic
of Germany does not make some of those activities
subject to that principle does not establish by itself, in the
absence of any other ground of complaint, that that
Member State has thereby failed to fulfil its obligations
under Articles 2(38) and 9 of
Directive 2000/60...
81. Therefore, in the implementation of a regime which
suspends (or removes) domestic water charges, it will be
necessary to ensure that there is no threat of a failure to
comply with the objectives of the WFD such as where -
paraphrasing Gawel37 no compliance-equivalent
measures have been taken beyond cost recovery, or that
the conditions laid down by the European legislator for a
partial suspension are not met, or that the obligation to
report and state reasons has been infringed. Gawels
criticism of the Courts decision in C-525/12 only serves to
underscore the significance of same and, it is of interest to
any future Irish scenario where domestic water charges
may be either suspended or removed, that Gawel posits a
question as to what might be the outcome of any future
infringement proceedings:
...Hence, in the context of liability to water abstraction
charges, one is eager to find out, for instance, to what
extent the far-reaching exemptions from water abstraction
charges in the 13 German federal states where they are
levied, but also the complete absence of abstraction
charges in the remaining three federal states, can take
place without posing any risk to the attainment of the
WFDs objectives and in compliance with the mandatory
reporting requirements with respect to the justification of
exemptions...
82.Commenting on the Water Framework Directive
generally, Kramer, EU Environmental Law (Sweet &
Maxwell, 8th edition, 2015), opined:
37 ibid, p. 77.
29
..As numerous provisions of the Directive are very loosely
drafted, much will depend on the political will and the
determination of the relevant administrations to work for
the improvement of water quality rather than monitoring
the status quo...38
83. Kramer cites Article 9 as a good example of such a
loosely drafted provision commenting:
..A good example is art. 9 of the Directive. It asks Member
States to take account of the principle of recovery of the
costs of water services, including environmental and
resource costs, but allows them in so doing have regard
to the social, environmental and economic effects of the
recovery as well as the geographic and climatic conditions
of the region or regions affected. It is difficult to see in
these provisions more than a policy recommendation
addressed to Member States...
84. A possible view of the Commission may be also be
discernable in a reply delivered on 5 December 2014 to
the following parliamentary question posed by Nessa
Childers MEP:
...The Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC)
requires that each user must bear the cost of consuming
water, and that adequate water pricing for usage must act
as an incentive for the sustainable use of water resources
in order to achieve the directives environmental
objectives.
Under the directive, Member States are required to ensure
that the price charged to water consumers, both domestic
and non-domestic, for the abstraction and distribution of
fresh water and the collection and treatment of waste
water reflects the true costs. The directive allows for
Member States to take account of the social,
environmental and economic effects of water usage in
recovering the costs of water services.
38 At page 276. Professor Dr Ludwig Kramer was head of
the Legal Unit of DG Environment, European Commission
between 1987 and 1994, and then moved to head the
Waste Management Unit. In 2001 Dr Kramer became head
of the unit on Environmental Governance, retiring from the
Commission in 2004.
30
1. Will the Commission describe the various schemes, or
methods, allowed to Member States to comply with the
legal obligation under the Water Framework Directive to
recover the cost of water services?
2. Can the Commission also specify if cost recovery for
domestic users must be linked to individual consumption?
85. In its response the Commission accepted that:
...The responsibility for implementation of the Water
Framework Directive (WFD)(1) lies with the Member States
and there is no obligation to follow particular schemes or
methods....
There is no specific requirement in Art 9 of the WFD for
cost recovery to rely on individual consumption...
86. In our view, having regard to the foregoing it is clear
that Article 9(1) gives Member States such as Ireland a
very wide discretion in relation to the manner in which it
exercises its obligations in relation to cost recovery.
87. It is also clear in our view that there is no specific
requirement on Article 9 for cost recovery to rely on
individual consumption. It is submitted that any attempt to
read such a requirement into Article 9(1) would amount to
an interpretation effectively correcting a provision of the
relevant directive. This approach was roundly condemned
by the Advocate General in C-525/1239 where he stated at
paragraph 57:
...In this regard, I would point out that the Court has
already rejected a line of argument advanced by the
Commission in the context of an action for failure to fulfil
obligations in the field of taxation by which the
Commission complained that a Member State had not
adopted an interpretation effectively correcting a provision
of the relevant directive, despite its content being
reproduced verbatim in the national legal order. The
Commission appears to me to be following a similar
approach in the present case on the basis of the regulation
on the protection of surface waters. In its judgment, the
Court referred to the principle of legal certainty, which
requires that EU rules enable those concerned to know
precisely the extent of the obligations which are imposed
on them. In addition, the Court has
39 Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11
September 2014. 31
held that, where the wording of provisions is clear and

unambiguous, as confirmed by the scheme of those
provisions, a concept contained therein cannot be
interpreted in a way which seeks to extend the obligations
of the Member States relating to it...
88. According to Gawel,40 the cost recovery programme
arising from Article 9(1) of the WFD is designated openly
and flexibly in respect of actual interpretation and is
moreover conditioned by the third sub-paragraph of Article
9(1), which appears to provide for a proportionality
assessment - Member States may in so doing have
regard to the social, environmental and economic effects
of the recovery as well as the geographic and climatic
conditions of the region or regions affected. Gawel posits
that the European legislator has opposed making a strict
across-the-board application on the cost recovery policy
binding.41
89. In our view, as the as the WFD provides no guidance
on what is meant by established practices, the choice of
form and methods of its implementation is a matter for
the individual Member State, so it is for Ireland to decide
what an established practice is for the purposes of Article
9(4)42. In addition, we are of the view that an established
practice in place at the time of the adoption of the
directive can be relied upon for the purpose of Article 9(4)
notwithstanding the fact that it might briefly have been
40 See article by Erick Gawel, CJEU on recovery for water
services under article 9 of the water framework directive:
Camera Locuta causa non Finita, The Journal for European
Environmental and Planning law, 12 (2015) 71-79.
41 See article by Erick Gawel, CJEU on recovery for water
services under article 9 of the water framework directive:
Camera Locuta causa non Finita, The Journal for European
Environmental and Planning law, 12 (2015) 71-79.
42 In June 2010 Entec UK Limited produced a report for
the European Commission entitled Managing Scarce
Water Resources-Implementing the Pricing Policies of the
Water Framework Directive42 which furnished advice on
water pricing policy in the context of the implementation
of the WFD and emerging policy areas such as water
scarcity, droughts and climate change. The report sought
to inform the development of the European Commissions
work on the assessment of Member States River Basin
Management Plans and to undertake an assessment of the
potential need for further work on water pricing beyond
the implementation of Article 9 of the WFD. At page 53,
the report sets out its conclusions and under the sub-
heading Gaps in the understanding and key issues in
relation to the Article 9 it referred to the flexibility
offered by Article 9 as follows: ...Flexibility offered by
Article 9 (in particular, reference to established practices
and social, environmental and economic effects of the
recovery, as well as the effect of geographic and climatic
conditions). As the WFD does not specify the social,
environmental and economic effects or geographic and
climatic condition that Member States may have regard
to, there is much room for (political) discretion here.
Additional flexibility is offered by Article 9(4) which refers
to the established practices. A variety of interpretations,
approaches, methods and arguments, could be used for
instance to when justifying application of the Article 9(1)
and 9(4) provisions. A thorough reporting is therefore
critical to Member States ability to justify these
exemptions, e.g. by showing that they do not compromise
the purposes and the achievement of the objectives of the
WFD....
32
abandoned. To hold otherwise in our view would amount to
an interpretation effectively correcting a provision of the
relevant directive. This approach was roundly condemned
by the Advocate General in C-525/12.
VI CONCLUSION
90. In our opinion, having regard to the aforementioned
and pursuant to inter alia the circumstances outlined
above, it is open to Ireland to seek remove or suspend
domestic water charges.
DARREN LEHANE CONLETH BRADLEY
6th April 2016
Treating the people like we don't know what this Government us up
to to Privatise our water ,, Al I can say is bring it on I not paying for
water that I already pay for. We maybe Irish but we not green
anymore and we not back in the 40th or 50th now and we not like
our Grandparents who bowed down to everything you told them to
do, we have coped on to all you doing to our beauitful country we
may not have much left because you our Governments gave sold
everything we Owen behind the Irish people backs , so hands of our
water yes Enda our water this time we the people have a say .
Attacking People who pay water charges is wrong,

The law was corrupt, the intention was corrupt,
The handling of Irish water was corrupt,
But the people of Ireland, who abided by that law are not
the enemy,
The Fucking Ass Holes Fine Gael, Fine Fail, Labour, Green
Party and Some Ind and PD, All Corrupt to the core, who
are attempting to force the privatization of our people,
These are The Corrupt greedy Perpetrators you should
blame, When you are Voting Remember these Above
Named Politicians, we need rid of the rotten apples sitting
in the Dial, Replacing them with new fresh honest decent
politicians, out with the old and in with the new,Perhaps
Next Time, we will all stand against Our Corrupt
Government, Perhaps the next Time, Well all prevent the
Privatization of our People,Perhaps Next Time, we will all
stand side by side with our peaceful protesters, Perhaps
for all of us this shit aint over yet.
Great news that Water Charges are gone...
BUT what' if the "metering programme" Continues?,
BEWARE THE Ides of March (back stabbers)?
Enda Kenny "Well it's Not about Water, is
it?
Nov 16, 2014
Enda Kenny at the Manson House "Well it's Not about Water is
it"
It' was never just about water...

'It' is a country divided by wealth and Influence. 'It' is
knowing there is a better way sold out for petty political
posturing.
Well, its not about water, is it?
Enda Kenny, November 2014
Martin McMahon writes:
It is etched on the worried face of a young mother
walking from Cork to Dublin.
It is CF sufferers huddled and masked in protest
outside a newly refurbished Leinster House.
It is Grace betrayed by unaccountable shadows.
It is Megans twisted spine, her publicly promised
operation cancelled when the camera is turned off
It is whistleblowers criminalised.
It is the tears in tissues beside the computer after the
weekly Skype to older children and grandchildren
who may never be seen again toiling in far flung
corners of Australia or America.
It is Dublin Airport Christmas week where broken
hearts will brim with joy once again reunited,
squeezed half to death with years of missed embraces
condensed into minutes only for those hearts to be
ripped asunder weeks or even days later as loved ones
leave a country that has failed most of us.
It is the fear of never seeing elderly parents again
save to bury their bodies in graves that will never be
tended or prayed over by the generation they raised.
It is skipping meals to pay bills that were never ours.
It lies freezing on unwelcoming streets, in Georgian
doorways or crammed in hostel hotels with no
dignity, forever destined to live in the margins.
It is newspapers advertising thousand euro coats
ripped up to cover holes in the soles of shabby shoes.
It lies dying on hospital waiting lists. It is social
immobility denied yet propagated by the same
affluent few generation after generation.
It is protesters criminalised in courts at the behest of
billionaires who will enjoy immunity from
criminalisation in rich mens tribunals.
It is a Dail that fails to hold government to account.
It is in the breaking of a people forced to protect
banks and bondholders who will never be stooped by
the burden of it.
It is a hundred years of right wing government, of
broken promises, of pandering to a privileged elite.
It is a tale telling Taoiseach.
It is a country divided by wealth and influence. It is
knowing there is a better way sold out for petty
political positioning.
It was never just about water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=0gN8SabM5MU
Warning of backdated 20k a day fine

if water charges scrapped
Thursday, March 02, 2017
Fine Gael members have been warned that Ireland would
be hit with a daily 20,000 fine, backdated to 2009, if
water charges are scrapped.

committee, told party members that Ireland would be
fined more than 50m by the European Commission if
they do not implement water charges.
charges put forward by Fianna Fil in recent days were
legally questionable and told his fellow Fine Gael
members that the commission had already given Ireland a
grace period to introduce these charges.
He said said that it was always going to be difficult toward
the end of negotiations around the future of water.
It was agreed that space be given to the Fine Gael team in
the committee to continue to negotiate the issues.
There was laughter when Mr Coffey suggested that he had
got to know members of the committee intimately
during their work on the future of water charges.
Separately measures to free up vacant properties around
the country were raised during the meeting.
Fergus ODowd told the meeting that there are currently
4,491 vacant homes in Cork City, with only 52 of these
holiday homes.
Mr ODowd told Fine Gael members that Cork currently has
a vacancy rate of 8.1%, this compares to a vacancy rate of
just 1.7% in London.
He suggested that homeowners who leave properties
vacant for more than a year should be penalised with a
levy.
Coveney.
Mr Coveney said he was already looking into the high
rates of vacant properties across the country and hoped to
have a report back on the matter in the next six to eight
weeks.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Taoiseach Enda
Kenny singled out secretary Noel Rock and noted what a
good job he was doing on the minute-taking of meetings.
It comes after the Dublin North-West TD faced criticism
when he publicly suggested that it was time Mr Kenny
stood down as Fine Gael leader.
Fine Gael members have been warned that Ireland would
be hit with a daily 20,000 fine, backdated to 2009, if
water charges are scrapped, writes Elaine Loughlin,
Political Reporter.

committee, told party members that Ireland would be
fined more than 50m by the European Commission if
they do not implement water charges.
advertisement

charges put forward by Fianna Fil in recent days were
legally questionable and told his fellow Fine Gael
members that the commission had already given Ireland a
grace period to introduce these charges.
He said said that it was always going to be difficult toward

the end of negotiations around the future of water.
It was agreed that space be given to the Fine Gael team in
the committee to continue to negotiate the issues.

There was laughter when Mr Coffey suggested that he had

got to know members of the committee intimately
during their work on the future of water charges.
Separately measures to free up vacant properties around

the country were raised during the meeting.
Fergus ODowd told the meeting that there are currently

4,491 vacant homes in Cork City, with only 52 of these
holiday homes.

Mr ODowd told Fine Gael members that Cork currently has

a vacancy rate of 8.1%, this compares to a vacancy rate of
just 1.7% in London.
He suggested that homeowners who leave properties

vacant for more than a year should be penalised with a
levy.
Coveney.
Mr Coveney said he was already looking into the high

rates of vacant properties across the country and hoped to
have a report back on the matter in the next six to eight
weeks.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Taoiseach Enda

Kenny singled out secretary Noel Rock and noted what a
good job he was doing on the minute-taking of meetings.
It comes after the Dublin North-West TD faced criticism

when he publicly suggested that it was time Mr Kenny
stood down as Fine Gael leader.
Both Fianna Fil and Fine Gael appear to be playing a
dangerous game of political brinkmanship over water
charges.
Neither party is either financially or politically ready for
another general election but that could be the result
unless a sensible compromise is reached.
Housing Minister Simon Coveney has said he will not
introduce water legislation that Attorney General Mire
Whelan says contravenes EU directives and exposes the
country to large fines if those directives are breached.
In doing so, he has not only opened a festering sore
between Fine Gael and Fianna Fil, he has exposed the
electorate to yet another election by challenging the
current confidence and supply agreement between both
parties.
Less than a year ago, Fianna Fil and Fine Gaels position
on water charges held up talks to form the minority
government we now have. It could now threaten its
continuation.
Considering that we are confronting far more pressing
matters like the fallout from Brexit as well as the
uncertainty posed by the Trump administration in the US,
it is incumbent on both parties to reach a consensus that
they can live with and the electorate can tolerate.
The water charges saga is wearisome and has gone on for
far too long. It is an egotistical squabble over a relatively
trivial matter and has taken up far too much parliamentary
time and must be put to bed for once and for all.
Two hours of heated debate and wrangling behind closed
doors between Fine Gael and Fianna Fil over water bills
has led to calls for a report on water to be delayed and the
need for legal advice.
Members of the Oireachtas committee on water charges

were unable yesterday to agree on whether to recommend
whether there should or should not be charges for excess
use.
Committee chairman Pdraig Cidigh has been tasked
with the help of Oireachtas staff in drawing up a draft
report on the future of charges for next Monday despite
the disagreement. Members have until this Friday to make
written submissions for the report before debating it in
private next Tuesday.
The latest deadlock is over whether households should be
billed for excess use. Fine Gael maintains this is necessary
to comply with EU laws and avoid hefty fines. Fianna Fil
argues Ireland is exempt from charging homes and that
users can be fined under existing laws.
advertisement
This latter point was debated yesterday, but there is
concern the existing Irish Water Services Act allows for
water to be cut off in homes and for those wasting it to be
jailed.
Fianna Fils Barry Cowen and Housing Minister Simon
Coveney both insisted they did not want to cut off supplies
for homes.
The committee meeting in Leinster House was described
as heated and members from both parties tore strips
out of each other, sources said.
Some members want more legal advice on whether having
no charges at all would contravene EU law while others
have proposed getting sight of the legal advice the
government is relying on.
Fine Gael and Independent members suggested the
committee get extra time to do its work, beyond a March
13 deadline. But water charges are only suspended until
the end of March.
Speaking after the committee row, Sinn Fin TD and
member Eoin OBroin said he hoped all sides could come
to an agreement.
The committee is split over water charges, with 10
members against future charging while Fine Gael, Labour,
Independents and Green members argue taxpayers should
not pay for those wasting water.
The committee though is likely to agree that there should
be refunds for some 162m in bills paid in recent years. Mr
Coveney said he is willing to look at this option. Any future
metering of homes is also likely to be recommended
against by a majority on the committee.
Earlier, Mr Cowen accused Mr Coveney of undermining
the committees work. He said Scottish experts had told
the committee that individual leakage and usage could be
detected by district metering.
He also warned that any refusal to implement
recommendations on water could collapse the
Government.
Mr Cowen said: If he [the minister] refuses to legislate, if
he refuses to adhere to the confidence and supply
agreement [under which the Fine Gael minority
government relies on Fianna Fil support to pass
legislation] and what is contained within it, its him thats
tearing it up a
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/warning-of-backdated-20k-a-
day-fine-if-water-charges-scrapped-444208.html
Varadkar rows in behind

leadership rival in
rejecting FF call to scrap
water bills
Cormac McQuinn, Kevin Doyle and Niall O'Connor
March 2 2017
Leo Varadkar
has backed Simon Coveney, his main rival in
the upcoming Fine Gael leadership battle, in
rejecting Fianna Fil's demand that water
charges be scrapped outright.
The Social Protection Minister last night gave his
unequivocal support for the principle of charging
households for excessive use.
Mr Varadkar's backing will be seen as significant as Mr
Coveney comes under fire from Opposition TDs for
insisting he won't legislate for the total abolition of
charges, arguing it would breach EU law.
Mr Coveney's remarks were branded "premature,
unprecedented and nothing but political" by Fianna Fil's
Barry Cowen, coming as it did before the Oireachtas water
committee completed its work.
Mr Cowen warned the dispute could spark an election. He
said Mr Coveney's stance would amount to him tearing up
the confidence and supply agreement between the two
parties.
Sinn Fin's Mary Lou McDonald accused Mr Coveney of
intervening "in a most inappropriate manner".
However, Mr Coveney stayed firm on his position and last
night it was confirmed that the two main contenders to
succeed Taoiseach Enda Kenny are united in their
opposition to Fianna Fil's demand.
A spokesman for Mr Varadkar said he supported charging
for excessive use of water.
"Average taxpayers should not be expected to pay for other
people's misuse of this precious resource," a statement
said.
Read more: Snap election threat 'if Coveney does not
accept water recommendations' - Fianna Fil warns
The spokesman also made the point that charges for
excess use incentivised the fixing of leaks and provided a
revenue stream that could be reinvested in the water
network.
But Mr Varadkar was also clear that an election should be
avoided over the issue. "The people of Ireland don't want
an election and nor does Fine Gael," the statement said,
adding that Fine Gael wants to work with other parties to
"find a solution".
Tnaiste Frances Fitzgerald and Public Expenditure
Minister Paschal Donohoe also weighed in behind Mr
Coveney. Both cited EU law in their argument for why the
polluter pays principle - and charges for wasteful use -
must be put in place.
"The legal advice available outlines that this is not a
position compliant with the Water Framework Directive,
therefore we cannot support it," Ms Fitzgerald's
spokesman said.
Mr Donohoe's spokeswoman said "Fine Gael is anxious to
work with other parties to find a solution" and referred to
the committee process as the means for reaching a
compromise.
Whoops, there goes another fool forgetting that we already pay for water
through general taxation and 33% of the road tax
The DEVIL AND HIS DISCIPLES AT WORK IN IRELAND AGAIN . PLEASE
KARMA END ROT AMEN.
Have an election and put the blueshirts out.
Their greedy policys on housing, the homeless and health. Coveney and
veradkas neo liberal agenda. to put public money into private pockets.
Leo where are we with Fine Gaels promise to abolish the Universal
Social Charge as outlined in your manifesto seems to have been watered
down?
Ah yes it's like Lanagans ball, i stepped in, stepped out again,
Horizontal folk dancing , Leinster House style.
Its damn the people from Fine Gael the party that still does not get the
message from the last election. Here we are treating the people like
fools, if in the morning the government announced that there would be
free metered water services they would not be trusted, I ask people to
remember when bin charges came in with waivers,tags,free recycling, its
now service charge, pay by weight, landfill levy, Vat and pay for
recycling that proposal is only postponed. I smile when its proposed free
water allowance what nonsense its paid for.
I note the media have come out in support of the government on the
issue not surprising since most of the spin doctors employed by the
government are journalists and part of what Donald Trump calls the
dishonest media.
Please let us have an election where Leo and Simon will get the answer
and the message they have ignored that the people are nobody's fool.
Maybe it's time to start protesting about the rip off charges for waste
removal., it should be covered by the property tax the councils get, and
motor VRT tax
what a farce and its time to throw FG to the wolves. This has less to do
with water charges per say and more to do with people being feed up
with the typical sneaky "by the back door tax" that FG are so adept at
inventing. The entire privatisation argument would disappear it FG
would legislate so that water could never be privatised but they won't do
that ... why not?
The biggest challenges are how to get rid of all the hangers on and
reduce the government to half its size ,With people that will put things
right for ALL the people and not just for the rich and elite that are
destroying the will of a lot of people in this country.
Also all this nonsense of household water wastage - some 50% of water
produced is lost but it not lost at the household its lost in the faulty
system bringing the water to you and this government wants you to pay
to fix this - oh please sell me a faulty car and tell me to repair it.
There is most certainly a lot wrong with privatisation of water services
we only have to look across the water to see what happened to charges
once water services were privatised, they snowballed to provide obscene
profits for the providers. Reduce the VAT, Motor Tax by the amounts
they were increased by when rates were abolished and have a
referendum on the future of I W these would at least show some good
faith on the part of the Political parties, well maybe, this is Ireland after
all. The "everybody else" argument is as valid as "I know you are but
what am I"
We traditionally did not charge or meter our water, yet we have been
shown to be among (in fact I think the LOWEST users of water in the
OECD) so, i know, let's start metering the people and charging them so
they'll use more......... I dunno about you, but it seems a bit daft to me ,
but it takes all sorts.
Oh, and not "everyone else"' charges. You don't have to look very far to
see both Scotland and N.I operating state water entities that do not
mandatory charge.
No problems either.
This is a blue shirt extortion attempt. Nothing more.
I paid more USC last year than Cerebus paid in taxes although they
made 77 million profit from Project Eagle. Do you think that is fair?
That is the FG way - support the mega rich and let us PAYE workers pay
their share. I am sick of paying for these parasitic organisations who
contribute SFA to the country, If you don't want to pay for some fella
filling his pool 4 times a year ,MAN UP, and refuse to pay like the rest of
us did.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-rows-in-
behind-leadership-rival-in-rejecting-ff-call-to-scrap-water-bills-
35494956.html
Timeline: FF's U-turns on

issue
Independent.ie Newsdesk
March 2 2017
Fianna Fails Barry Cowen, accompanied by (from left) Marc
MacSharry, Willie ODea, Senator Lorraine Clifford-Lee, Mary
Butler and John Lahart at Leinster House. Photo: Tom Burke
January 16, 2016: During his speech to the
party's rd Fheis, Fianna Fil leader Michel
Martin said: "We will scrap Irish Water, and
the failed, loss-making charge which funds
it."
February 11, 2016 - General Election campaign: The
party's manifesto committed to abolishing both water
charges and the public utility, Irish Water.
But during a speech on the same day, Mr Martin said his
party would "abolish Irish Water and scrap water charges
for the next five years".
The position would be reviewed in 2021, the Cork South
Central TD said.
February 17, 2016: During an interview with RT

broadcaster Bryan Dobson, Mr Martin indicates that his
party's position is to scrap charges entirely.
2
Michel Martin. Photo: Colin O'Riordan
February 19, 2016: Mr Martin tells RT broadcaster Sen

O'Rourke that charges will be scrapped until the "system is
fixed".
March 9, 2016: Fianna Fil's environment spokesman

Barry Cowen appears to harden the party's stance on the
issue.
"Fianna Fil is committed to ending water charges and
saving ordinary families 800 over the next five years," he
said.
May 3, 2016: Fianna Fil signs up to the 'confidence and

supply agreement' which states that Irish Water will be
retained but that charges will be suspended for nine
months. The issue would then go to an Independent
Expert Commission, and then an Oireachtas committee
before being voted upon in the Dil.
September 12, 2016: In its submission to the commission,

Fianna Fil proposes the abolition of charges and the
provision of water funded by general taxation.
During an interview, Mr Martin denies suggestions of a u-
turn.
"We've said from day one prior to the election and our
submission is very consistent with our general election
position," he said.
September 20, 2016: With Sinn Fin preparing to table a

motion in the Dil on the issue of water charges, Mr
Martin appeared to alter his party's position once again.
He said that given the make-up of the Dil, the return of
charges was "unlikely".
"The only way that water charges can be reintroduced is
via legislation by this Dil and that is unlikely given the
configuration of parties within the Dil."
December 13, 2016: The water committee sits for the first
time. Fianna Fil has six members on board.
March 1, 2017: Many Fianna Fil TDs are surprised as Mr

Cowen states that the party will not support any form of
excessive charge.
Simon knows the value of a victory over Fianna Fil

- but it's a risky game
imon Coveney leaving City Hall in Dublin yesterday after
announcing details of the housing assistant payment
scheme. Photo: Steve Humphreys
Ten days before Christmas, Simon Coveney
walked into the Dil bar just ahead of last
orders, looking tired but victorious.
It was a rare appearance in the visitors' area of the pub by
the minister who is often accused of being too quiet.
On the night in question, he would have been within his
rights to raise a toast to a good day's work, having fended
off demands from Fianna Fil that had tested the
'confidence and supply' arrangement to the limit.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/timeline-ffs-uturns-on-issue-
35494952.html
FF keeps the rural vote on
tap as water charge anger
streams out
Niall O'Connor
March 2 2017
Fianna Fil deputies Marc MacSharry TD, Senator Lorraine

Clifford, Lee Barry Cowen TD, and Willie O'Dea TD, during
a press briefing on the plinth of Leinster House, on
recommendations laid down by the Oireachtas Water
Committee. Photo: Gareth Chaney Collins
As the temperature at the Oireachtas Water
Committee increased sharply this week, so
too did the number of emails and phone
calls made to the offices of the 20 TDs and
senators involved.
Much of the correspondence came from concerned, law-
abiding Irish Water customers who wished to make
absolutely clear their desire for refunds.
Others took a different stance entirely.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/niall-oconnor-ff-
keeps-the-rural-vote-on-tap-as-water-charge-anger-streams-out-
35494891.html
The solution to water

charges must be legal
March 2 2017
Fianna Fils Barry Cowen says Simon Coveney is refusing
to legislate. Mr Coveney rightly says he wont introduce
legislation which is contrary to the advice of the Attorney
General, as it wont comply with EU regulations (Stock
photo)
The standoff between Fine Gael and Fianna
Fil over water charges is about more than
whether householders should pay bills.
Fundamental principles around payment for public
services and compliance with the law are also at play. Add
in the fraught tensions between the Civil War parties and a
forthcoming leadership election and it all adds up to a
heck of a political drama.
Fine Gael believes water charges are necessary to ensure
those who waste water pay, and to comply with European
Union regulations.
The story of water charges non-introduction
here is among the least encouraging tales of
modern Ireland. It started as a simple, if
contentious, administrative task.
It was to provide significant investment for a creaky water
delivery system which was losing half its capacity to leaks.
It was to further end the barbaric neglect which allowed
raw sewage going straight into our watercourses, be it
river, lake or seashore at 40 locations.
It was not too surprising that the prospect of a new charge,
or tax, at a time of bruising economic austerity was not
welcome. But there was broad acceptance in middle
Ireland that piping and cleaning water, along with dealing
with waste water, is not now, nor was it ever, free of
charges.
Fianna Fil reverts to the

worst kind of populist
politics
Approach to water charges demonstrates they remain
unfit for government
about 10 hours ago Updated: about 3 hours ago
Stephen Collins
12
Fianna Fil leader Michel Martin: The party sponsored the introduction of
water charges as part of the programme for government agreed with the
Green Party. File photograph: David Sleator/The Irish Times
Fianna Fils cynical approach to water charges has
demonstrated that the party is unfit for government for
the foreseeable future.
The espousal of new politics over the past year had
helped to rehabilitate Fianna Fils reputation but by
lining up with Sinn Fin and the hard left in outright
opposition to water charges it has reverted to the worst
kind of populist politics.
It is now advocating a policy that is illegal and damaging
to the environment. It would also inevitably cost the
Irish taxpayer hundreds of millions of euro in EU fines.
The partys approach casts doubt on whether the current
arrangements for keeping a minority Government in
place are worth persisting with for very much longer.
Fianna Fils approach to water charges proves it has
learned nothing from its past mistakes and raises serious
questions about whether it can be trusted with the levers
of power.
It is difficult to believe but Fianna Fil actually
sponsored the introduction of water charges as part of
the programme for government agreed with the Greens.
That programme stated: In order to fund our water
infrastructure in the years ahead we have decided to
introduce domestic water charges for households over
the next four years. This will be preceded by the roll-out
of water meters.
Fianna Fil followed that up by agreeing to implement
the EU water framework directive, thus bringing an end
to the derogation from charges which had been
negotiated in the 1990s. Finally, it committed the Irish
State to water charges as part of the EU/IMF bailout of
2010.
Z FG and FF refuse to rule out election over water
charges
Z Fianna Fil has fixed the leak, but not the drain
Z Can Simon Coveney turn water charges defeat into
victory?
Fianna Fil did not remain in power long enough to
devise a system for water charging. That fell to the Fine
Gael/Labour coalition which, after a good deal of
dithering, made a mess of its introduction.
Nonetheless, 63 per cent of households were paying
water charges by the time negotiations for government
began after last years election.
Toughened position
During those negotiations Fianna Fil suddenly
toughened its position from advocating a charging
system that would allow average households to pay little
or nothing to outright opposition to any charges.
The party has adhered to this line at the Oireachtas
committee set up to consider the water issue despite the
clear advice from Attorney General Mire Whelan and
the European Commission that Ireland would be in
breach of EU law if it follows the course that the party is
advocating.
In choosing to ignore all of the expert advice on the
desirability of a proper water-charging system and the
prospect of EU fines Fianna Fil is at one with Sinn Fin
and the Anti-Austerity Alliance-People Before Profit.
That says more about the partys lack of direction than
anything else.
If Fianna Fil has shown itself to be spineless and
irresponsible on the issue, Minister for Housing Simon
Coveney has shown himself to be the exact opposite. He
has enhanced his reputation by firmly rejecting the
Fianna Fil approach regardless of the consequences for
the future of the Government.
I am not going to take a position that is contrary to the
independent legal advice from the Attorney Generals
office. That would be blatantly irresponsible of me and I
wont do it, he said.
Coveney can be faulted for opening the door to Fianna
Fil opportunism last April when, in his eagerness to
strike a deal on the formation of Government, he
conceded that the abolition water charges could be a
matter for negotiation at an Oireachtas committee.
The subsequent confidence and supply arrangement
between Fine Gael and Fianna Fil owes more to
Coveney than anybody else. Fianna Fil may have
calculated that because the Minister had shown so much
patience in the effort to put the Government together he
would give way on water.
In adopting a tough line in defence of the national
interest he has shown a commendable willingness not to
become addicted to power at any price.
Unlike Fianna Fil, the Labour Party and the Greens
have followed a consistent and responsible line on water
charges. Former Labour minister for the environment
Alan Kelly made an impassioned defence of a coherent
water charging system in the Dil in April and his party
has adopted a similar line at the committee.
Conventional wisdom has it that Fine Gael and any other
party that defends water charges will suffer unpopularity
with the electorate but it may well be that the opposite is
case.
Torrid year
If Coveney sticks to his guns and refuses to legislate for
the abolition of water charges he will mark out Fine Gael
as a serious party of government on the side of the law-
abiding majority of citizens who were willing to pay their
water charges. After a bad election and a torrid year in
office it could even be a platform for the partys recovery.
It is also likely to do Coveney no harm in the Fine Gael
leadership election, which is about to get under way.
In all likelihood the impasse over water will be resolved
by some fudge that will kick the problem down the road
again. That would enable Fine Gael and Fianna Fil to
continue with the current Government arrangement for
a short while longer, but the controversy indicates the
clock is ticking on that arrangement.
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fianna-fil-reverts-
to-the-worst-kind-of-populist-politics-
1.2994096#.WLfwVGyhmbI.facebook

the enemy,
blame,
When you are Voting Remember these Above Named
Politicians, we need rid of the rotten apples sitting in the
Dial,
Replacing them with new fresh honest decent politicians,
out with the old and in with the new,
Perhaps Next Time, we will all stand against Our Corrupt
Government,
Perhaps the next Time, Well all prevent the Privatization
of our People,
Perhaps Next Time, we will all stand side by side with our
peaceful protesters,
Perhaps for all of us this shit aint over yet.
So the FG led minority government sets up a commission
of inquiry into Irish Water and the viability of water
charges and say they'll abide by it's findings, the
commission have recommended the scrapping of charges
and the metering program and refunds for anyone who
has already paid.
Now Simon Coveney is saying that he is not in favor of this
as it would be in breach of EU law.
So in other words, they spent millions of taxpayers money
on a commission of inquiry knowing full well that no
matter what the outcome they were going to ignore it
anyway.With the current housing crisis and record no.s
homeless, the health service in tatters and denying the
nation of 13 billion in unpaid taxes owed and still they
throw all OUR taxes into Irish Water when we've clearly
said NO.Has it ever been more obvious that the
government are there to serve the elite and their puppet
masters in Germany? Short answer NO!If FF don't bring
down this dictatorship then it's up to US.Time to polish the
boots and take to the streets again, some Thoughts
Timeline: the Siteserv

controversy
Whats the story behind the issue?
Fri, May 29, 2015, 13:28 Updated: Fri, May 29, 2015, 13:31
Denis OBrien: took an injunction against proposed RT report on his private
banking affairs with IBRC.
March 2012: Denis OBriens Millington buys Siteserv
for 45.4 million. The deal saw State-owned Irish Bank
Resolution Corporation (IBRC) write off 110 million of
its 150 million debt, effectively a 70 per cent haircut.
April 2012: Unsuccessful under-bidder Altrad raises
concerns about the deal, claiming it was prepared to
offer 60 million for Siteserv. It also emerges that the
law firm Arthur Cox advised both Siteserv and
Millington on the sale. Siteserv issues a statement saying
Altrad never formally approached it. Denis OBrien
associate and Millington shareholder Leslie Buckley
rejects claims the sale process was flawed.
May 2012: Siteserv delists from the Dublin and London
stock exchanges.
July 2013: Siteserv subsidiary announced as one of
three companies awarded contracts for the installation of
water meters for Irish Water.
April 21st, 2015: Siteserv controversy blows up again
after Independent TD Catherine Murphy retrieves
documents under the Freedom of Information, which
reveal level of official concern over deal.
April 22nd, 2015: Former chairman of the IBRC Alan
Dukes denies suggestions of impropriety as Government
comes under pressure to order a full independent
inquiry.
April 23rd, 2015: Government moves to quell growing
storm by announcing review of IBRC deals, including
Siteserv.
April 24th, 2015: OBrien says he did not run the sale
process which led to his company Millington acquiring
Siteserv.
April 27th, 2015: Former IBRC boss Mike Aynsley
rejects suggestions bank had become too close to OBrien
May 1st, 2015: Sunday Times report reveals spike in
Siteserv shares in the period before companys sale.
May 7th, 2015: Murphy suggests under Dil privilege
that insider trading may have occurred in Siteserv
shares.
May 12th, 2015: OBrien takes injunction against
proposed RT report on his private banking affairs with
IBRC.
May 21st, 2015: OBrien and IBRC win court
injunctions against RT preventing the broadcast of
proposed report. Judge indicates intention to publish
redacted statement on basis for decision in June.
May 28th, 2015: Murphy makes new claims in the Dil

about OBriens banking arrangements with IBRC.
OBrien claims information was false and that it was an
abuse of Dil privilege.
Magna Carta- a precedent for recent constitutional
change Judiciary of England and Wales Speeches.
15 June 2005. Retrieved 4 November 2014
http://magnacarta800th.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/10/Precedent_Recent_Cons
titutional_Change.pdf
The Magna Carta (The

Great Charter) Preamble-
John, by the grace of God,
king of England, lord of
Ireland
http://www.constitution.
org/eng/magnacar.pdf
POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM
COMMITTEE
we published A new Magna Carta? 1 Second Report of the
Political and Constitutional Reform ... written document.
Constitutional laws and rules have no
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-
committees/political-and-constitutional-reform/The-UK-
Constitution.pdf
MAGNA CARTA - IMPACT ON THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION Protesting the Patriot Act
CONSTITUTION DAY 2015 The Magna Carta- Its Impact
Upon ... the new Constitution ... The Court found
unconstitutional
https://mncourthistory.wildapricot.org/resources/Docum
ents/1%20Celina%20Ough%20-%20Protesting%20the
%20Patriot%20Act.pdf
Marian Harkin MEP who says she has no ideological
opposition to direct water charges insist we are not in
breach of any EU directive on water. When is the last time
you heard her on Rte?
Water Services (Amendment) Bill 2016:
Second Stage (Resumed)
end .main
All Dil debates on 28 Jun 2016
Previous debate
Next debate
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second
Time."
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
5:40 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)Link to this:

The reason I hesitated in beginning my contribution on the Bill is
that, according to the new leader of the Labour Party, Deputy
Brendan Howlin, during Leaders' Questions this morning, there is
a doubt as to whether we can even be discussing this Bill.
According to Deputy Howlin, it is potentially unconstitutional
because the EU Commission has declared, in its opinion, that
Ireland does not have an exemption from water charges and has
an established practice of recouping the charge for water. I just
wanted to check that it was okay with the Minister for the
Environment, Community and Local Government that we
proceeded.
It brings out the farcical nature of this Bill and of this whole
charade by the Government. If EU law overrides Irish law, as
Deputy Howlin is trying to contend, I wonder how seriously the
Minister and the Government are going to take the issue of
fighting the EU Commission on this. Or, as I suspect may be the
case in nine months' time when the commission that is being set
up deliberates, is this designed to take the steam out of the anti-
water charges campaign and movement and to look for new ways
to try to bludgeon the people into submission, using the EU ruling
to do so in the process? If that is the case, I warn the Minister
that under no circumstances are the people who became very
exercised and activated on the issue of water charges going to
allow that to happen. The fact that a democratic decision taken
by the electorate in February to elect 70% of TDs who made a
declaration to oppose and abolish water charges is going to be
ignored by the EU Commission says it all about how the EU is
behaving lately.
I turn to the Bill itself and to the Minister's speech made on
Friday. The first thing for people who are watching this Bill to
note is that this Bill keeps and maintains Irish Water intact. Irish
Water is currently outside the terms of this Bill. That may be
familiar territory to Members in the House, but people outside
might be surprised by that. This is effectively the first broken
election promise by Fianna Fil, which had posters across the
length and breadth of the country about abolishing Irish Water
and which has instead opted to maintain it. We could be
discussing a Bill now about abolishing and burying Irish Water
but we are not.
The second key issue is that the Bill is silent on water metering. I
ask the Minister to agree to amend the Bill and insert a provision
to the effect that water metering will be suspended and ended for
the duration of the process in this Bill. By anyone's standards,
the idea that metering is taking place in housing estates as we
speak, when we in here are debating whether to suspend water
charges, is ludicrous. If the Minister is serious about listening to
people, he should agree to amend that in the next Stage of the
Bill. It is a complete and utter waste of money that 500 million
is being spent on a metering programme that nobody ever asked
for or wanted.
The Government keeps telling us it is serious about conservation.
I draw attention to a section of the Minister's speech from Friday
and to the legacy of successive parties - Fianna Fil, Fine Gael,
the Labour Party, the Green Party and the Progressive Democrats
- who were in power for the last number of decades. I quote the
Minister's own words: "We are guilty of having underinvested in
water infrastructure and services for decades". It goes on about
"often financially constrained circumstances". We were not
financially constrained in the 1990s or the 2000s. I was on a
council, as I sure other Members present were, during the period
of the biggest building programme in this country. On Fingal
County Council, for example, most of the housing - at least 50%
of it - was built during this time. None of the recommendations of
councillors from the left or of environmentally-concerned
councillors were taken on board by councillors of Fine Gael or
Fianna Fil. There could have been a whole raft of water
conservation measures in those new homes. These parties should
really stand indicted for their lack of investment.
The other issue in the Minister's speech is an acceptance that
there was not enough debate on the previous water services Bill,
which is obviously welcome. There was a clear bias in the
Minister's speech when he spoke of those who want water
services to be funded by the Exchequer and how they must
essentially realise that water in that case is "competing with
hospitals, schools, roads and other services for budgetary
allocations". There is another option. Just for a change, the
Government could look at taxing the significant amount of wealth
and profit of big business in this country. The Minister and his
party consistently say that people on the left who oppose water
charges have offered no alternatives. I am about to offer the
Minister at least five of them.
The first alternative is to stop opposing the EU Commission on
one issue on which I do support it: the idea that Apple, one of
the largest companies on the planet, ought to be pursued by the
Government for back taxes it owes this country of an estimated
17 billion to 19 billion. That is one suggestion.
If we were to do this, we could fund many water pipes.
My second suggestion concerns a millionaires' tax on income
above 1 million. It would allow people a fair degree of spending
power. Let us start there. These are just basic ideas to show
where there is wealth. If we were to impose a 2% tax on all
income above 1 million, we could bring in 2.7 billion. The
European Commission has recommended that the Government
introduce a financial transactions tax; however, the Government
picks and chooses which of the European Commission's
recommendations to which it should listens. It could raise 500
million if it introduced a minimal financial transactions tax, or 1
billion if it was to introduce a more moderate one.
How about enforcing the headline corporation tax rate at the
effective minimum rate? That would bring in 2 billion this year
alone, which would go a long way towards funding the water
infrastructure we need. How about a 10% increase in the
effective rate of income tax paid by the top 10% of earners?
Again, it could bring in 2.7 billion. We could introduce a change
in the rate of employers' PRSI towards the EU average. I am not
suggesting we go above it. It would raise billions of euro every
year. These are just some of the new ways by which we could
increase the so-called fiscal space and enlarge the pie
significantly in order that we would have money and would not
be competing with hospitals, schools and all other services.
There are other sources of finance in the country which are
seldom mentioned. The Irish Strategic Investment Fund which
others and I have highlighted has 5.4 billion in cash which
should be used to build houses for the 140,000 families on
housing lists. The National Asset Management Agency has 2.4
billion in cash. Could we use some of it to fund water
infrastructure? The Irish banks which were bailed out at huge
cost by Irish families have 6.5 billion more on deposit than they
have given out in loans. Could we ask them to supply some of it?
Although there are major sources of funds, the Government and
Fianna Fil have their minds fixed on making ordinary workers
and families pay water charges, but there are other ways. It is
often said the Opposition does not propose alternatives. I have
just given approximately six and would love the Minister of State
to comment on some of them.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
5:50 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Brd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)Link to

this: Individually | In context 1468278000, 1488463457 | Oireachtas source
In a matter of a weekend and a day a range of issues have come
to the fore that will have surprised and not surprised the Irish
public. A very interesting series of attempts to cover up and
support each other is happening between the Government and
the European Union at the same time as the discussion on Brexit
and the question is being asked why ordinary people would vote
to leave such a great, kind and democratic institution as the
European Union. For us, it circles around the Bill and water
charges. It is no surprise that we face another suspension.
Fianna Fil has introduced a great act into the body politic,
whereby it will back up the Government, pretend to be in
opposition and suspend everything the Government wants to
suspend in order to take the heat out of an issue. It did exactly
what the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, desired to do
regarding bin charges, which was to avoid more demonstrations
and more feet on the street. The Minister said in the House that
we did not need another movement on the streets against bin
charges. The Bill attempts to suspend water charges and kick
them into a commission of investigation, not to do what Fianna
Fil promised the people, which was to abolish them.
This has been said many times. The more interesting issue was
teased out in the newspapers, the media and the body politic
over the weekend, namely, the revelation that the Government
was using the European Commission as a fig leaf to allow it to
insist on maintaining Irish Water, threaten the public and push
through water charges in some form. Marian Harkin, MEP, and
Lynn Boylan, MEP, have done a great job in exposing, through a
series of questions, how the issue was used as a fig leaf. By
following the logic of the questions asked and the answers given,
one can see that the Water Framework Directive was introduced
by the European Union in 2000 and signed off on by the Irish
Government in 2003 to 2004.
The European Commission was asked what it saw as "established
practice" in charging for water. It stated it depended on what the
Government was doing when it adopted the directive in 2003 and
2004. At the time, our practice was not to charge for water. In
the reply to another question submitted by Marian Harkin, MEP,
the European Commission took the view that "established
practice" referred to the point in 2010 when the Government
indicated it would introduce water charges. The European Union
is changing its tune. In one response it was said "established
practice" referred to what the position was in 2003, while in
another it was said it referred to what the position was in 2010.
This is entirely to suit the agenda of the Government.
There is a great relationship between the European Union, Fine
Gael and the "Endapendents", backed by Fianna Fil, with the
intention of trying to hoodwink and fool the population. It will not
work. Suspension or no suspension, what has happened here has
been another display of outrageous contempt for the democratic
will of the people. All the Government is doing is providing a
cover for a corporate agenda, multinationals and regressive
charges which put the onus back on ordinary people. As Deputy
Ruth Coppinger pointed out, there are many ways to skin a cat;
there are many ways to skin the corporate cat which is getting
away with murder.
There is a contradiction in Fine Gael's statements. When asked
about the European Union's possible attempt to force Ireland to
increase its corporation tax rate from 12.5%, Brian Hayes, MEP,
emphatically responded that if the European Union was to
attempt it, we would pull out. Whether the rest of the party
stands over this, it is the statement of the MEP for Dublin on Fine
Gael's position on the raising of the corporation tax rate.
Increasing the rate of corporation tax is a spectre, but imposing
regressive taxation on the least well-off is not. The vast majority
of people have shown, by putting their feet on the street, voting,
being willing to resist bullying and even going to court and prison
that they are determined to ensure further austerity will not be
imposed on them in the form of water charges.
There are many other ways to pay for water through progressive,
not regressive, taxation. When the Government states it is giving
more of the same, we must say it is not fooling the population.
You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of
the people all of the time. If the Government does not show
respect for the dead - water charges must be dead - it must be
shown how to respect the dead. To that end, the population will
have to take to the streets again. The Right2Water movement
will meet on Monday with a view to organising further mass
demonstrations. This is in response to the nonsense about
whether the EU directive applies to water charges, the
contradictory nature of the answers we are receiving and the
clear attempt by the European Union to bully the Irish people.
One would think the economic bullies of Europe who are trying to
force the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership down
our throats and privatise everything that moves in the interests
of corporate and global multinationals would have learned from
what the people of Britain said in response to the question of
whether they wanted to remain in or leave the European Union.
They have not learned. Instead, they are trying to shove more
bullying tactics down the throats of ordinary people, but it will
not work. People are wise to them. There will be more people
back on the streets and further opposition and it will come back
on Fine Gael and those in this House who made false promises to
the people and are reneging on them. We must totally reject the
contents of the Bill and show that we are prepared to resist
bullying by the European Union inside and outside the Chamber.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
6:00 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, United Left)Link to this: Individually |

I wish to share time with Deputy Connolly.
I questioned what I would say on this Bill because many of us in
opposition who support the Right2Water campaign have to
question whether we support the legislation because it is a farce.
I do not reckon that the EU is working hand in hand with national
governments on these issues, yet five days after the vote for
Brexit because of the arrogance and the contempt of the 1% in
the EU political class, it issued a statement about Ireland that it
would be in breach of the Water Framework Directive because
water charges are the established practice in the country. That
arrogance will come back to bite the Union and the Government
parties. When water charges were introduced, I recall a picture of
Phil Hogan standing with a smug smile on his face holding a glass
of water saying, "You will pay for water." That is imprinted on the
minds of everybody opposed to these charges and austerity.
They said, "No way, we won't pay." They also said they would not
accept them and this was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Then Deputy Alan Kelly brought in legislation a year later saying
he had listened to the people and water charges would be
reduced, but we pointed out that was not what the people were
saying. They were saying, "No way, we won't pay." In the general
election, the democratic will of the people was to elect more than
90 Members who oppose water charges with a sizeable number
of us prepared to vote against the current water charge regime.
Fianna Fil issued a jingoistic response. Party candidates clearly
stated during the campaign that they opposed water charges and
they would oppose them in the Chamber. They then came up
with a half-baked proposal to set up a commission of inquiry to
sit for nine months with a report to be sent to the House. The
majority of us oppose this and it will be defeated. In the
meantime, the Minister of State with responsibility for European
affairs, Deputy Dara Murphy, stated, "I think it is up to us in
politics to convince people, that there is merit in having a fair,
balanced, limited scheme for charging for water ... That achieves
the ambition and that reduces waste of water and guarantees we
have a stable supply of water." Obviously, that means a stable
supply of income coming directly out of people's pockets through
a charge.
People have asked whether water charges have been buried. I
have always said they are dead but not buried. The task other
Members and I have is to ensure they are buried over the next
period. I do not know whether it is even worth supporting the
commission of inquiry. What will the terms of reference be? Who
will be on the commission? If it reports back saying it has
convinced the people over nine months through the media that
the politicians are right and people have to pay a charge and it
has done its job, they will not fall for it. The people are watching
the situation closely and they are checking every nook and
cranny. I held a meeting on bin charges in Ballyfermot last night.
That issue has died down because the Minister did not want the
same huge numbers on the streets protesting like they did
against water charges. However, those who attended asked
questions about water charges such as what the Commission
means by saying Ireland is not exempt from water charges under
the Water Framework Directive.
This issue raises a question about the entire European project. As
a country, we have a responsibility to tell the EU we will not
implement this directive and we have a different way of doing
things. As has been pointed out in the debate, there are other
ways to raise money to fill the fiscal space everybody talks about
such as corporate taxation, the Apple issue and the potential bill
of between 17 billion and 19 billion, NAMA and credit unions
being able to provide funding of between 2 billion and 4 billion
for housing and taking the pressure of cutting other services if
water services are not paid for.
I remind the House that we have always paid for water services
through general taxation and VAT, in particular. That is the way
they have been paid for up to now. It is progressive as it relates
to the amount people earn. We should return to this. The
Government should tell the Commission that we pay for water a
different way, which is the same way we have paid for it since the
year dot through VAT. That is a more progressive way to do this.
Other aspects of the water charges issue could be debated such
as how long it has taken to install water meters, the cost of doing
so, the jailing of people and the resistance to the programme.
Will the Government stop the water metering programme? Will it
accept the fact that the people have said "No" on numerous
occasions? Every time Fine Gael and its partners have come back
to the House, they say they have listened to the people but they
have not. They have listened to the 1% in the EU and the 1% in
the private water industry who want to grab our water
infrastructure.
Most Independent Members and Sinn Fin have signed up to the
Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public
Ownership) Bill 2016, which challenges Article 28 of the
Constitution, to keep our water services in public ownership. That
will be introduced during the next Dil session. I question
whether I will support the commission of inquiry. I would like
more detail about who will be on it and the terms of reference.
There has never been water poverty in this State because people
have not been forced to pay for water directly from their wages.
Those who cannot afford to pay are not forced into a position
where their water could be cut off. That cannot happen now
anyway because the previous legislation was amended under
pressure from the people. However, that could happen in the
future and it has happened in other countries such as the US
where people's water is cut off because they cannot pay a water
bill.
The Government can get money elsewhere to pay for water
services. That should be done in a progressive way and should be
linked to changes in our use of water and to planning and
development regulations. Why does every house that is built not
have a dual water system, which uses rain water to flush toilets
and run washing machines with clean water only going through
taps? That would be an investment for the next century, never
mind the next three or four years. That issue has been raised on
numerous occasions at council meetings throughout the country
but such measure has never been implemented. I question the
Government's sincerity on environmental issues.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)Link to this:

Gabhaim buochas as ucht an deis cainte ar an bhar thar a
bheith tbhachtach seo a bheith faighte agam. T g prinneach
ann riteach a fhil sa chomhthacs seo, ach n h seo an
riteach. Nl anseo ach cur i gcill amach is amach. T s suimiil
go bhfuil an Rialtas, cosil leis an Rialtas a bh againn an bhliain
seo caite, an-tgtha le L na nAmadn. Sa bhliain 2015, sheol
siad amach na bill ar an gcad l de mh Aibrein.
Is an dta canna at i gceist ars sa dhachtreachtaocht seo.
I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute on a subject that
is most important. I come from Galway city and have a
background of having served as a member of a local authority for
17 years and I am acutely aware of the importance of water
services, a cryptosporidium crisis and a polluted lake. As I speak,
approximately 4,000 to 5,000 people around Carraroe, in
Connemara, cannot drink their water. I do not speak from a
position of negativity or as part of the radical loony left but as a
very pragmatic, practical, radical woman who believes that in any
civilised society there are basic services that unite us in solidarity
with each. Water is one of those services, as are waste collection
services and health and education services.
It seems that this is a complete pretence and fudge of an issue,
and there are more holes in this apparent solution as there are,
unfortunately, in our water system that is leaking on a daily
basis. The figures we had in Galway were that there is anything
up to 40% leakage from the system. We have to deal with that
but I am afraid that Fianna Fil has failed and I do not expect
Fine Gael to change that. However, I at least respect its position.
It has repeatedly said that water charges are necessary. Fianna
Fil told the electorate that they were not and that it would vote
to get rid of them. Rather than use our time and our new energy
and the broad range of opinion in this Dil to find a solution and
to work together, we are using our energy on draft legislation
that is going nowhere and which will give a watery birth in nine
months time that will not be a solution to anything, with the
possibility of further extensions if we need them, depending on
the political situation. That is while the metering situation
continues against people's wishes. We do not want it.
We want to conserve water. I take exception to the phrase, "the
polluter pays". I am tired of that terminology. I am not a polluter
and most people are not polluters; we are users of a basic
service that we cannot live without. To say that we need to be
punished in order to save is ridiculous in the extreme. It does not
tie in with any research in psychology or with marketing. People
must be brought on board in terms of this issue and most of us
want to be brought on board. We have children and we want to
hand down a better environment to them and the best way to do
that is to bring us all on board.
In terms of education, that should happen with the Government
and the European Union, which continue to look on citizens as
polluters and users of services rather than as active citizens who
want to share in making the world a better place. If Fianna Fil
was seriously interested in new politics it would stand with us
and say, "Stop this charade and have a referendum to ensure
that water remains in public ownership". That would give
confidence to the people.
What really highlights the cynicism of the entire approach is the
100 grant that was brought in to help us to conserve water but
now it has been scrapped, which shows that it was just a foolish
bribe at the time. However, as can be seen, people are not easily
bribed. Now that it is gone, Fianna Fil does not care about
whether we conserve water. There is not a word in the legislation
about conservation. There is no reward for us as users, nor is
there any positive mechanism to keep us on board. No money
being made available to local authorities to help them.
I became a member of the local authority in 1999 and left it
when I was elected to this House. During that time we begged
the Government for funding. We knew exactly what was
happening. We had very good staff on the ground whose number
have since been reduced. We had good engineers and other staff
but they were all removed. More than 20% of the local authority
staff in Galway was reduced. How could they carry out any sort
of job on water services? Even within that they gave us an
excellent service. If a problem arose and we called them, they
came out immediately. We now have a situation where we make
a telephone call to a service in Cork, which results in us going
around in circles.
I am not in the business of demonising Irish Water. I believe the
demonisation of the chief executive officer of Irish Water, the
former city manger of Galway, was and is unacceptable. I have
had my rows with that man but it is unacceptable to demonise
Irish Water and its staff when it was set up to provide a service.
When what was happening was exposed, however, through very
good journalism, there were heads on a platter rather than the
Government taking stock and saying it should examine this
because it is not working.
Without a doubt, Irish Water was set up with a view to privatising
the service. That privatisation has been stopped in its tracks for
the moment but I am not foolish enough to believe we have
stopped the tide. We have done nothing of the sort. We have
simply tried to hold the system to account on behalf of the
people who put us in this House. We promised the people who
elected us that we would strive and do our best to ensure people
had a water service as a human right, which is what they, and
we, deserve, and that it would be paid for out of taxes.
I have a difficulty with this issue. While I welcome the suspension
of water charges I believe it is the wrong way to go in the sense
that we should abolish them and work together to have a service,
paid for from taxation, that brings us all on board. Many ways
have been outlined for increasing the level of taxation but it is an
insult to the people to say they do not want to pay for services.
They do, but they want to pay for them out of their taxes and it
is our role as a Dil to increase and broaden the tax base to allow
us provide basic services. Dividing one citizen from another, as
we have done with health in terms of private and public health
care, bin charges in terms of those who can afford to pay them
and those who cannot, and repeating the process with water is
shocking.
Those in Government have got caught up with an EU mantra that
is foolish in the extreme where we at the lowest level have to
comply with rules but those at the highest levels do not. They are
also deliberately misinterpreting a water directive when it could
be interpreted in a positive way to conserve water, and to
examine how we can do that and how we can bring people on
board. Those in Government and, particularly Fianna Fil, have
wasted a golden opportunity and it shows up the cynicism of the
new politics that its members have come in here day after day
since February to talk about.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
6:10 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)Link to this: Individually | In

The next speaker is Deputy Fitzpatrick who is sharing his time
with Deputy Durkan.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Peter Fitzpatrick (Louth, Fine Gael)Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this topic. The
amendment to the Water Services Act basically means that there
will be a suspension of domestic water charges for the period
from 1 April 2016 until 31 December 2016. This suspension can
also be extended if required. During the last election campaign,
I, along with my party colleagues, argued that we must have a
system in place to charge for domestic water and wastewater
services. I spoke on the issue of water charges in this House in
April and my position has not changed.
A number of people on the opposite side of the House have
campaigned exclusively on the issue of water charges. One would
think that the issue of water is the only one that affects the
country. It is not the issue that people who call to my clinic want
to talk about. The real issues I hear raised on the doorsteps
include the Government's plans for the health service; finding a
solution to the housing crisis; improved funding for the education
sector, in particular the Dundalk Institute of Technology; creating
new and sustainable jobs; and the impact of the UK leaving the
EU. These are the real issues facing people.
It is interesting to note that a survey carried out among voters in
this year's general election showed that only 8% of them had
indicated water as their main issue. People have told me that
under no circumstances must we ever go back to the boom and
bust policies of Fianna Fil that destroyed this country. The
populist position to take is to reject charging for water and
wastewater services. We have seen in the past week how those
who pursue populist policies run from their responsibility when
they get the opportunity to act on their policies. I have no doubt
that we would see the same happen here should those be given
the opportunity to act on their populist policies. I would urge
people to consider this when they next vote.
I want to put on record my position should it be decided that
water charges are to be abolished. All people bar none who have
paid their water charges should be given a full refund in the
event of water charges being abolished. Under no circumstances
should those people be left out of pocket because they legally
paid their bills. The nine-month suspension of the charges is to
allow for a process to be set up to examine the charging of water
services.
An expert commission is to be established which will make
recommendations on a sustainable long-term funding model for
the delivery of domestic public and wastewater services. A
special Oireachtas committee will then consider the
recommendations and, in turn, the Oireachtas will be asked to
vote on them. At this stage, my concern is that those on the
opposite benches know how they are going to vote regardless of
any recommendation. They have their heads stuck in the sand
and do not want to see any reasonable alternative to water
charges. I ask all those opposite to provide a viable alternative to
a charging system for water and wastewater if they have one.
Simply stating that it is to be paid out of general taxation is not a
realistic position. People are tired of hearing the same old line
from those in opposition. It is now time to put up or shut up. If a
Member has an alternative solution, now is the time to show it to
the people who voted for him or her.
We hear a lot of new politics in this Dil. Now, we have an

opportunity to see it in action. I look forward to hearing the
views of those on all sides of the House when the
recommendations are published. It will be interesting to see
new politics in action then. What happens if the Commission
and the committee both recommend that the current
system or something similar should be implemented? Will
those opposite vote for the good of the country or will they
vote for their own personal gain?
Once again, I record my position on water charges. We should

have a system of charging in place that is based on usage
with a generous free allowance. We must encourage those
who use the least and discourage those who waste water. If
the House decides that water charges are to be abolished,
all those who have been compliant and paid their water
charges must get a full refund. We must not under any
circumstances disadvantage those who have been legally
compliant. The bottom line is that the country needs to
invest over 1 billion in its public water system just to bring
it up to an acceptable standard. The money has to come
from somewhere. It will not just appear. I ask those who
think water should be free where they think the funding is
going to come from. I look forward to the findings of the
expert commission which I hope will provide a way forward
for a modern and reliable waste water service.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
6:20 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)Link to this: Individually | In

Over the years, I have had numerous occasions to speak on this
and similar subjects in the House. The debate has always been
the same. It is a question of whether there should be a charge
for domestic water supplies. I believe there should be a
recognition that an investment is needed in the development of
the water supply system far beyond anything that has been
envisaged over the past 30 years. I have put down numerous
parliamentary questions to various Governments and Ministers
over the years inquiring as to the proposals to provide the capital
funding for the provision of adequate water supply, storage,
treatment and transmission services. It is now recognised that
the costs are laid out more or less as had been indicated in the
past number of years at somewhere between 5 billion and 8
billion although it could be more if we were to have a reliable
water supply similar to that which is available in other countries
throughout the EU, which gets the blame for a lot of things.
I can remember when our water supply was comparable to most
others in the western world. When one went on holidays to
neighbouring countries one was always very careful about the
water supply. That has changed because they have invested in
their water supplies while we have not. It is one thing to curtail
the quality of water, but it is quite another to curtail the quality of
water by virtue of a lack of investment and to put lives at risk.
We have had the situation in this country over the past number
of years where rivers and lakes were polluted to an appalling
extent while at the same time we had people saying we could
certainly not have any charge for water. We cannot have any
recognition that water requires an investment and we will do as
we did before by going on and ignoring it. It does not work that
way.
The demand from industry as well as from the domestic market
are such that a failure to respond in a clear and emphatic way to
the investment requirements of our water supply system will
mean our industrial activities will be curtailed dramatically. It will
not be possible to provide the water services required for an
expanding economy, it will not be possible to expand the water
services required for industry and it will not be possible to do it
for an expanding population. Taking all of that into account, there
is a need for massive investment along the lines already
identified. Where that is going to be funded from is the next
question. It will not be possible to fund capital expenditure of
that magnitude from a domestic charge. Neither should it be
expected to be hived over to the industrial sector because we
either want jobs or we do not. If we want to kill off economic
growth, the way to do it is to pile as much taxation on the job
creating sector, on each person who is at work and on each
employer, as possible. Eventually, we will not need a water
supply because nobody will be at work. The position is clear.
We must recognise that a charge of some description is
necessary to recognise the fact that water is not free. This
question has come up again and again. We are told water is free
because it comes down from the clouds and we should know all
about that in this country as it comes down often enough.
However, it has never been free. I remember when everybody
went to the village square with a bucket and turned a handle.
This is not so many years ago. In every square in every town,
there was a pump and one got the water and brought it home. It
was free in that no one can impede a person from gaining access
to a water supply albeit one might have to go to the river with a
bucket. However, time passed and we became more
sophisticated. We provided a water supply to households. It then
emerged that it would cost more money and we would have to do
something about it. That was done too. Incidentally, I can
remember a time when it was suggested at an election that we
would not have to pay rates. There was a figure in the old rates
system in respect of water. It was a nominal sum but it was
there. Somebody decided to abolish rates. I will not say who it
was. I cannot remember. My memory does not go back that far.
It happened, however, and motor tax was abolished at the same
time. The next thing that happened was that the country went
bust and we had to reintroduce the whole thing all over again
because there was no money in the kitty. People asked why we
did not fill the potholes or provide water or do all the other things
we were supposed to. The answer was that there was no money.
It all had to be changed over again.
As such, when people say it is all provided for in general
taxation, I note that it was not. I put down a parliamentary
question to a previous Government asking to what extent the
water costs had been transferred to general taxation and the
answer was that they had not been. There one is. I am not
saying the Minister of the time was telling a lie because I know
that Ministers never do that. Certainly, the Minister at the time
did not tell a lie. He was giving the information as he was asked
as to whether it was provided for in general taxation and he said
"No".
We are now back where we started asking how we fund and
provide a service in the future or if we do it at all. If we fail to do
it, we will have run away from our responsibilities and at some
stage in the future, somebody will pass judgment on what we
have been doing. The EU has been blamed. I was listening to Mr.
Nigel Farage this morning. I do not like to speak about those who
are outside the House who cannot speak for themselves, but he
had a long list of proposals for the future admonishing the
European Union, despite the fact that he has been a
representative in the European Parliament for a number of years.
One of them was tariffs on trade which is to say isolationism.
That will be very interesting in the future because we will not be
able to sell our goods and they will not be able to sell theirs.
Everybody will put up the barriers and eventually things will
come to a halt. That did not work in the past and we changed it.
Other people have ideas about the system in eastern Europe 35
years ago or more where the theory was that everybody piled
everything into the grand pool and everybody drew from it as
time went by. Of course, that system went bust.
No one wants to accept responsibility for everyone else's
problems. Things do not work that way.
Regardless of whether we like it, the question we must now ask
is whether a nominal charge for a water supply is good. My view
is that it is, as it reminds everyone that we should conserve.
Conservation must be a major issue in the debate. Whatever the
outcome, we must ask what is in the best interests of those
people and industries that require an ongoing supply of water
and what is the responsibility of publicly elected representatives
whose job it is to provide others with that service. It will not be
enough to fudge the issue and say that someone else will have
the responsibility to do it, that they will not see it at all because
it will be a general issue and that they will tax X, Y and Z
because they will not accept responsibility. We must accept
responsibility. I favour the concept of either a flat charge for a
basic service or a waiver system, which we had previously and
which would take families' circumstances into account. There is
no objection to that.
The danger is that, once an issue becomes a political football, it
will eventually be kicked to death and nothing will happen.
Consider our current scenario. A candidate in a by-election
decided that he would oppose water charges, full stop.
Subsequently, a party in this House made the same decision,
followed by another party. Not every party agreed at the same
time. Unfortunately, democracy does not work like that. It would
be nice if it did. If this becomes a political football, we could well
find the same question still hanging over our heads in ten years'
time as to how to fund a water supply that is sufficient to meet
our domestic and industrial needs as well as increased
expectations and demands.
At this point, we must ask ourselves what we are about. It is not
just enough to blame the EU. The EU does not impose anything.
It imposes what was agreed by the member states making their
individual contributions. That is the sum total of what comes out
of the EU by way of directive. There is no use in pretending that
it is not. That is how it has always been. Something might have
been agreed last year, five years ago or ten years ago.
In the final analysis, we must invest in the water supply. We have
a duty to the Irish people to ensure that this is done. We must
put in place a system that is reliable and will not break down
every five minutes. We must renew the existing system. There is
no use in people complaining about pipes being porous and
leaking water all over the place while also complaining about the
expenditure. We must do something about it. If we are to do
that, we must start somewhere.
I wish to comment on general taxation. Many of us received e-
mails and requests before the general election to the effect that
motor tax should have been abolished or attached to general
taxation or energy tax. That sounds good and some countries
have done that. Maybe it suits them. Maybe they get or generate
their energy in a different way. However, we tried that as well
and it did not work. There was resistance when the alternative
was introduced. As they say, that is politics.
Regarding investment in water, how to regulate it, how and
whether to charge for it and whether to install meters, it has
adequately been proven in my time in the House that meters are
necessary. If there is any possibility of conserving water, that is
how it will be done. People will automatically know that they
must conserve because water will cost more past a certain level.
It will be in everyone's interests to conserve. People will say that
we should meter afterwards, but that is not how things work. We
must put the infrastructure in place before we can develop it.
In so far as taxation is concerned, we must undoubtedly find a
way to invest. The major capital investment that is required
cannot come from domestic users. The amount would be too
great. It could have been done 25 or 30 years ago, but it is too
late now. In my dealings with domestic householders, they do
not mind paying a fee as long as they get a good quality of
supply. Deputies who represent parts of the country that depend
on group schemes and so on will point out that the people there
have been paying for their water supplies all of their lives. Some
have been paying up to 2,000 or 3,000 per annum, which is a
considerable amount.
One way or another, we need a greater recognition of the fact
that we must find a way to cease polluting, improve the quality
and reliability of supply, resolve the antipathy that has been
generated towards a charge for water and find an acceptable
mechanism.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
6:30 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

The next three Deputies are sharing time.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)Link to this: Individually | In

I wish to share time with Deputy O'Rourke and the Acting
Chairman once we manoeuvre the situation with the Chair.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this debate. I am
pleased to support the Water Services (Amendment) Bill 2016. It
sets out a route to end the water charges regime. The failure to
pass the EUROSTAT test and the low payment rates have
undermined the basis of our water services model. Water charges
failed in 2015, with only 53% of bills being paid, equating to an
annual revenue of approximately 144 million. Last year, the
water conservation grant cost approximately 100 million. There
was an administration charge of 25 million and interest on
repayments of a further 41 million. Expenditure was in the
region of 166 million against income of 144 million, generating
a loss.
The Bill reflects Fianna Fil's agreement in facilitating a Fine
Gael-led minority Government to see water charges suspended
immediately and the decision on future charges to be decided by
the Dil. The Bill is a compromise. Members from all sides
entered the election with their manifestos and policy positions on
water and water charges. The Minister and his party did not win
the election. Neither did we. We have different views on what
should be done with water charges and Irish Water. It became
clear that the dynamic of the Thirty-second Dil was somewhat
different than that of the Thirty-first, with a majority of Members
favouring the abolition of the charges and many favouring the
abolition of Irish Water. It is clear from listening to other
Deputies' contributions that, despite having an electoral mandate
and this being one of their policy positions, they failed to engage
in the process. The Bill is a compromise, but it gives effect to
what we set out to do. We did not win the election and we are
not in government, but this was a key component of our
campaign. While the Bill retains Irish Water, it suspends the
conservation grant and establishes the legislation to suspend the
charges.
Deputy Durkan asked what the long-term funding models for the
delivery of water would be, but that is the point of establishing
the expert commission. We are not walking away from the issue.
This is not an irresponsible Bill. We understand Deputy Durkan's
points about the need for future investment in water services.
It is part of a programme. Suspending the charges affords a
window of opportunity, or timeframe, for Members of the House
to engage, first through the expert commission and then through
a committee of the House. The matter will be brought back to the
Dil within nine months, which I welcome. I am disappointed that
not all Members engaged in the process to establish the
programme. The vast majority of Members were of the view that
the charges should be suspended.
I do not want to repeat many of the points made, but I must

state we sometimes forget very quickly that is only a little over
two years since the issue first arose. In October 2013,
wintertime, the Irish Independentstated:
Dublin City Council said supplies could be cut off today from 6pm
until 7am two hours longer than yesterday and that
restrictions will remain until Monday. The shut-off comes during
a busy mid-term week when Dublin is bustling with tourists and
Halloween revellers...
The article quotes the city engineer as saying: "The problem is
that the lake water is proving very difficult to treat not because
it's bad, but because of the characteristics of the water." He also
stated: "Normally, Ballymore Eustace is a stable environment
because it's a big, deep lake."
In Dublin the water supply is on a knife edge; there is a fine

balance. At any given time, our usage is near capacity and there
are not many spare resources. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan
touched briefly on future economic and residential development,
in respect of which there is a problem. It struck me that a
conservation grant was given to households last year. If that
money which amounted to a sum in the region of 100 million
had been invested directly in repairing leaks or improving
capacity, it might have had a far greater output in terms of the
water supply in the Dublin area.
With regard to metering, much of the leakage occurs not

necessarily in private properties but from main pipes along roads.
Neighbourhood and block metering, which helps local authorities
to identify leaks in areas, needs to be established and
implemented in order that leaks can be identified quickly.
In June 2012 the Oireachtas committee produced a report. At the

time the Minister's Department was stating 41% of water
nationally was lost through leakages. I believe it used the
expression "unaccounted for", which meant loss through
leakages. From 2000 to 2010, my party in government invested
in the region of 500 million per year in water services. Much of
the investment was in sewage treatment services and to improve
water quality. Of equal importance, particularly in the Dublin
context, where the supply side is under significant pressure, is
ensuring a significant investment programme to fix leaking pipes
to reduce the rate of water leakage substantially.
I am pleased that the Bill is before the House. I will be very

interested in seeing and working with the findings and
recommendations of the commission and the Oireachtas
committee.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
6:40 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Frank O'Rourke (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)Link to this: Individually | In

I am delighted to speak on this topic. The current water charges
system has failed. It has failed because, when considered in the
context of overall taxation policy, it has failed the fairness test.
Like many other policies the Fine GaelLabour Party Government
implemented when correcting the public finances or sharing
financial gains, its policy in this regard was to prioritise the well-
off instead of the less well-off. All of its budgets were adjudicated
on by the ESRI as being regressive in nature, as distinct from the
fairer progressive approach needed. The ESRI's report on budget
2015 which confirmed Social Justice Ireland's analysis of that
budget stated it had been the fourth regressive budget in a row
introduced by the Fine GaelLabour Party Government and a
budget that widened the gap between rich and poor. The ESRI's
analysis of the previous year's budget, budget 2014, showed that
it had had its greatest impact - a reduction of 2% - on low-
income groups.
For taxation measures to be accepted by the people, they must
be fair, but the way in which the Fine GaelLabour Party
Government went about implementing the water charges regime
lacked fairness. A quick analysis of the income and expenditure
figures for water charges demonstrates what a total fiasco the
former Government made of the implementation of the charges
regime. Let us consider last year's figures. In 2015 only 53% of
water bills were paid. This level of payment secured annual
revenue to the State of 144 million. However, 100 million was
spent by the Government on the water grant which was
promoted as some kind of a water conservation incentive.
However, this payment was not linked with any conservation
measure; it was only to get the people to pay their water
charges. It was an indirect admission by the Government that its
approach to water charges had failed. In 2015, 41 million was
due in interest repayments over the year, while another 25
million was paid in administration costs. On this basis, taking
costs and revenue into account, the State actually lost 22
million in total on its water charges regime in 2015. Some 46
million a year is being spent on wages in Irish Water, while more
will be spent on bonuses. This is on top of the 172 million in
set-up costs. I am not aware of any other tax introduced in
recent memory in the collection of which money was lost. We
need to end this failed regime and move on from this issue.
When all costs are factored in, namely, the 540 million spent on
water meters, the 172 million spent in the setting up of Irish
Water and the 46 million spent in running it and paying wages
and bonuses, the Government's creation of Irish Water will leave
the taxpayer 759 million worse off this year than if it had not
been set up. Taking this in the context of the local authorities
already having in place many specialised and dedicated staff
dealing with water-related issues, was there a need to create
such a monster as Irish Water? The staff in local authorities are
carrying out the works at the request of Irish Water.
One of the reasons for setting up Irish Water was related to its
ability to borrow money off balance sheet. Private borrowing by
Irish Water is now effectively impossible owing to its growing
reliance on Government payments. It will be more expensive for
Irish Water to borrow on the markets than the Government. Why
would we set up this body, facilitate it to borrow money at more
expensive rates than are available to the Government and then
effectively ask the people to meet the increased cost of
borrowing through their water charges?
Water charges were introduced following the introduction of the
universal social charge, the property tax and the removal of
many social protection benefits, including benefits that were
taken from older people. When the Fine GaelLabour Party
Government made a decision to adjust universal social charge
levels in its last budget, it decided to reward the well-off
disproportionately, which was another example of its regressive
and unfair approach to taxation policies.
The Government will introduce further amendments to the Bill to
ensure the suspension period runs in tandem with the timeframe
for the work of the expert commission and the Oireachtas on the
issue. Our support for the Bill is subject to this happening. No
new bills will be liable for payment until the end of March 2017,
by which time the Dil is due to have voted on the future of
water charges having considered the expert commissions report
and the recommendations of the special Oireachtas committee.
In effect, water charges are gone until the Dil votes on the
matter.
In the European Parliament in September 2015 Sinn Fin MEPs
voted in favour of "providing for the application of a progressive
charge that is proportional to the amount of water used", It is
clear that the official Sinn Fin position on this issue abroad is
quite different from that at home. From 2007 to 2011 the then
Northern Ireland Minister for Regional Development, Mr. Conor
Murphy of Sinn Fin, had the opportunity to reverse the policy on
water metering, but he made no attempt to do so. Under his
watch, a comprehensive water metering programme took place
across domestic properties in Northern Ireland. In the recent
Brexit referendum campaign I watched with interest as Sinn Fin
campaigned for a "Remain" vote. In every EU referendum that
took place in this jurisdiction in recent memory it campaigned
against the European Union. Which is the real Sinn Fin? Again,
we find its approach is completely inconsistent.
Ireland faces a range of issues, not simply the argument on
water charges. Dil ireann is obliged to confront these matters.
The health service, housing, the future of education, including
special needs education, supports for older people and crime
prevention all require a major political commitment. We need to
resolve the water charges issue and move on and the Bill gives
us an opportunity to do so. It gives us a window of opportunity to
end water charges, solve the problem of Irish Water and move on
to the serious political issues, while still enabling stable
government at a time when stable government is most needed.
The Bill reflects the first part of the Fianna Fil agreement in
facilitating a minority Government that will see water charges
immediately suspended and their future decided by the Dil.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Bill and commend my
colleagues who participated in the talks on the formation of a
Government and negotiated to ensure the Bill would form part of
the Fianna Fil agreement to facilitate a minority Government.
I represent a constituency that is divided on water charges. In
one part, albeit one that is not restricted geographically,
significant resistance to the water metering programme
continues, while in another part, the programme did not meet
such resistance and was greeted with enthusiasm by some.
Speaking previously on this issue, I noted how the establishment
of Irish Water had the potential to be a ground-breaking
development on a par with the establishment of the ESB. As I
pointed out at the time, however, Irish Water's destiny was
sealed from the moment it was established, accommodated by a
guillotined debate in this Chamber when elected Members were
denied an opportunity to discuss amendments or engage in any
serious worthwhile debate. The previous Government then
engaged in perhaps a dozen U-turns and the then Minister for the
Environment, Community and Local Government, Phil Hogan,
threatened to punish non-payers by reducing their water supply
to a trickle.
It could have been so different. The speed with which the
previous coalition moved to shoehorn this utility into existence
raised deep suspicions among members of the pubic about the
possibility of water services being privatised. This, with the fact
that thousands of people, many of whom are vulnerable and rely
on State assistance and entitlements, simply could not afford to
pay, deeply angered people. This anger was felt not only by
traditionally vulnerable people but also by public servants,
garda, nurses and teachers, all of whom had been put to the pin
of their collar and baulked at the level of charges being
suggested in reports.
The failure of Irish Water was not solely because people did not
want to pay. There was a failure to win public confidence and
secure moral public investment in the utility through a lead-in
time of between three and five years. The company also failed to
secure the confidence of the most committed supporters of water
conservation and metering who envisaged a smart, flexible and
responsive system that would genuinely reward efforts at
conservation. Instead, everyone who wanted one got a
conservation grant for doing nothing.
The previous Government insulted people's intelligence. The
Minister spoke recently about the need for education in the
context of pay-by-weight bin charges. A university business
faculty somewhere must be designing a course on how not to
build a commercial state utility using Irish Water as an example.
Thanks to the Fianna Fil Party's willingness to facilitate the
formation of a Government, the challenge we face is to move
forward and take the necessary steps to correct the mistakes
made.
As I said, however, it could have been so different. The previous
Government could have embarked on a prolonged education
campaign, beginning in primary schools and evolving into post-
primary and community education. Instead, schoolchildren
protested with their parents at marches and wrote the right to
water principle into their 2016 proclamations. The Department of
Communications, Energy and Natural Resources could have
embarked on a detailed, dynamic communications strategy
informing the public over time of the finite nature of the natural
resource that is water. The previous Government could have
worked in tandem with the State broadcaster and encouraged it
to play its part in producing balanced documentaries about the
importance of water conservation and international best practice.
It could have invested over time in the science of water
conservation, encouraging research into water conservation
measures. As I pointed out in a previous contribution, the state
of Massachusetts in the United States has introduced new
building regulations that oblige builders to ensure hot water flows
within 12 seconds of the tap being turned on. The previous
Government could have used the opportunity to design a smart
metering programme that enabled consumers to monitor their
water use, thereby empowering them in terms of usage. It could
have explored additional water harvesting technology for
domestic use and examined further building regulations that
could have assisted reduction in domestic water use. The
previous Government could have designed an intelligent
programme but did not do so and, in its haste, squandered a
major opportunity to do something great for at least a
generation. Instead, it designed, at mesmerising speed, a model
that appeared to envisage Irish Water being fattened up for
privatisation. It then promised to punish citizens who would not
pay, the majority of whom could not pay.
The previous Government lost its mandate on water charges at
the general election. The Fianna Fil Party made a commitment
to the electorate and this Bill is the first step in achieving it. We
have outlined a clear pathway for realising this commitment, and
the majority of Members of this Dil will decide on the future of
water charges following the report of the expert commission and
Oireachtas committee.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
6:50 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)Link to this: Individually | In context

I take issue with Deputy John Lahart's remarks that the previous
Government lost its mandate on Irish Water. All parties have
agreed that the RTE exit poll taken on the day of the previous
general election was highly accurate. The poll found that 5% of
those who gave the Fianna Fil Party their first preference voted
on the issue of water. If one were to analyse the specific rationale
behind the decision of individual voters to vote for particular
candidates, the water factor would be unquantifiable. There is no
validity, therefore, in the argument that the majority of Members
of the Dil elected in February oppose water charges or that they
were elected to abolish Irish Water. It is impossible to determine
whether this is the case and I do not believe the extreme left on
this issue.
I will not defend the actions of the previous Government, of
which I was not a member. It is clear that the construct of Irish
Water was flawed in terms of gaining public acceptance. As a
Fine Gael Party Deputy in the previous Dil, I was unhappy with
certain issues related to Irish Water. Just before the previous
Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government,
Deputy Alan Kelly, changed an element of the water charging
regime, I voiced my concerns in an interview with RTE, as did
many other Deputies on the day in question. The very next day
the Cabinet took the welcome decision to change its position.
The bottom line with regard to the outcome of the general
election is that the previous Government made mistakes on a
multitude of issues, including Irish Water. We are human and the
mistakes that Government made cost the careers of dozens of
Fine Gael and Labour Party Deputies. I have a major problem
with the concept that because the majority of Deputies in the
previous Dil passed an unpopular law introducing water charges
based on commitments given by Deputy John Lahart's party in
the preceding Dil, we must completely undo and fundamentally
change the manner in which a public service utility is structured
and funded. There is something inherently wrong with that
proposition.
I take a principled position on water charges. Since 2009,
charging for domestic water use has been a Fine Gael Party
policy which I signed up to in 2009 at local elections when I was
re-elected as a councillor, again in 2011, when I was elected to
Dil ireann, and in 2016 when I was re-elected to the Dil.
While I have no desire to see water charges removed, I accept
that the establishment of a commission examining the structure
of Irish Water and the charges it applies is a good thing. It is a
pity the political cost of the ongoing fallout from the introduction
of water charges has been a debate involving the suspension of
water charges.
The Minister will meet Commissioner Vella next week.
I have no wish to speak for the Minister, but I imagine the
question he will be asking is whether we could be fined,
potentially, for our suspension of water charges, because Article
9.4 of the Water Framework Directive applies and the derogation
does not apply. Are we going to be fined?
The cost could be similar to the figure Ireland was fined for turf
cutting. I understand that figure was 25,000 per day. If so, it
would cost the State approximately 10 million over the course
of a year or 7.5 million if it was for nine months. I doubt that
will be the case and imagine it would be for 12 months. That is a
total of 10 million that we could be spending on water services.
I offer some examples. A gentleman who worked for Dublin City
Council and Dublin Corporation for 40 years was in my office
recently. He was a very nice man. He worked in water services
provision for the city council, as well as Fingal and South Dublin
county councils at various stages. He referenced the Vartry
tunnel in Dublin which supplies approximately 340,000
customers. It is 150 years old but does not have a brick or any
cement in it. It is a natural bored hole, literally cut out of the
rock, muck and everything else around it underground. It is in
danger of collapse. Irish Water and Dublin City Council, on its
behalf, must service the tunnel. Those involved have to shut off
the water and crawl up a hole in the ground. If there is a
collapse, they have to shut off the water and literally crawl up a
hole in the ground to try to find it. In 2016 that is a perverse
state of affairs. I have seen a report on it. It was provided to me
by the gentleman I referred to. The report is on the record of and
was debated by Dublin City Council many years ago. The report
identified the requirement to fix the tunnel but nothing
happened. We have had 50 years of complete and abject failure
of successive Governments to invest in water infrastructure, yet
the moment we instigate a charging regime that, I hope, was to
normalise the investment process, we suspend it for political
expediency purposes.
Dublin operates at 98% capacity. We are not having a drought
now but if we had a drought in the summer months for a couple
of weeks at most, and Dublin's supply from County Wicklow and
elsewhere and Fingal's supply from Leixlip and elsewhere dried
up then potentially hundreds of thousands of customers would be
either throttled, that is to say, there would be a reduction in
water pressure, or shut off. Hundreds of thousands of people
would be affected. Most of our European counterparts operate on
a 15% capacity. In other words, they are operating at 85% and
have 15% headroom for such eventualities. We do not. We have
2% headroom.
There are 16 locations throughout the country where, if a person
flushes the toilet, the wastewater goes directly out to sea
untreated. Two of these are in my constituency in the vicinity of
Rush. On three occasions in the past month alone, four beaches
in my constituency were closed on the advice of the
Environmental Protection Agency on the basis of toilets
overflowing and wastewater from treatment facilities ending up in
the Irish Sea.
The Dil arithmetic requires us to adopt a resourceful position. I
say as much because if we had not adopted this position, we
probably would not have a government. Furthermore, even if we
had, a democratic vote of Dil ireann would abolish Irish Water
outright as well as the charges. That would be the end of that.
Instead, an opportunity has been provided to us with Fianna Fil
support, which is appreciated, for the purposes of discussing this
matter to ensure that we get it right this time. That is good. I
remind the Deputies opposite of an RTE exit poll. It is available
and people can download and assess it. According to the poll,
only 5% of voters voted for Fianna Fil based on the issue of
water.
I wish to touch on the Water Framework Directive and Article 9.4
in particular. The Commission has given a rather unambiguous
response. The so-called Irish derogation would no longer be an
option. Having come off RTE "Drivetime" and a discussion with
Deputy Paul Murphy, I imagine the response will not put an end
to the debate on the derogation. The bottom line is that the
European Commission has said that the derogation no longer
applies and that we are not in a position to abolish water charges
without consequences. I hope this hastens the debate in terms of
ensuring that we have a reasonable and rational discussion about
a reasonable level of funding and Ireland being the only country
in the EU or the OECD that does not have water charges or that
did not have water charges heretofore.
I was in the Chair when Deputy Ruth Coppinger took to her feet
earlier. She said this Bill was unconstitutional because it went
against the EU Water Framework Directive. That puzzled me and,
I imagine, anyone with who has read the Ladybird book on the
law. The bottom line is that we have a law in place and an
opportunity to ensure we frame it correctly in terms of a
reduction of taxation for our constituencies and citizens
throughout the State. Moreover, we must ensure that the polluter
pays, which was the principle adopted with the Water Framework
Directive in 2003. The directive set out that by 2010 all EU
member states would agree their position on a charging regime.
We had a derogation because we did not have such a regime, but
we do now.
It is interesting that the Department submitted its first river
basin management plan in 2010 without reference to the
derogation. I was a Member at the time the debate took place on
the question in 2012. The Commission published a report on the
Water Framework Directive and Ireland. I remember the
arguments in the House and the briefing notes on the fact that
there no longer was a derogation. I recall the debate centred
around whether it had been signed away as part of the bailout. I
believe it was.
We have had 840,000 meters installed throughout the State.
What an extraordinary waste of public resources it would be if we
were to abolish Irish Water and water charges at the end of this
process. Getting rid of 75% of the Irish Water's phase 1
programme for the introduction of water meters would be an
incredible waste of resources. Having said that, I remember the
statistics from 2014 on the number of properties identified as
having major leaks. One property in particular was leaking 1
million litres of water per week, enough to supply the entire town
of Lusk in north county Dublin. I recall Deputy Brendan Howlin
referenced Enniscorthy, a town with a similar population. The
bottom line is that without water meters that would not have
been identified, because they were not on-premises leaks. It is
good that we are installing meters and it would be an
extraordinary waste of our resources if we failed to utilise the
meters that have been installed. Whether we agree with it from
an ideological perspective, the meters are in place. They cannot
be taken out and stored like the e-voting machines, never to be
seen again. The bottom line is that they are in place, the
taxpayer has paid for them and we should use them.
I made the point about Ireland being the only country in Europe
or the OECD that has not had water charges heretofore. We are a
unique nation in the sense of our partnership with the European
Union. We like to think of ourselves as being special to some
degree, but really we are not. We are an incredibly impressive
country in terms of what we achieve. This is a small island on the
outskirts of Europe, yet we are world leaders in so many areas.
We have a highly skilled workforce and a vibrant economy, which
thankfully is beginning to come back. However, we still do not
accept the basic principle that everyone else pays for water
production and that we pay 49.5% marginal income tax. That is
quite enough.
A person on a low to medium or an above-average income who is
asked, "Will you pay more tax to have proper water
infrastructure?" will always answer, "No. I pay enough tax
already."
For 50 years our taxation system fundamentally failed to invest
enough taxpayers' money into water infrastructure because it
was underground and could not be seen. Local authority
members were more engaged in fixing potholes, putting in
playgrounds and things like that, which is fine. I was a councillor
for seven years and accept that is what happened. However, for
over 50 years Ministers in the Department of the Environment,
Community and Local Government failed to invest properly.
The suspension of water charges, as envisaged in the Bill,
presents a difficulty for me and many others who worked very
hard to ensure that this arrangement was introduced in the first
place. It was not something we wanted to do, but it was the right
thing to do to ensure the burden on taxpayers was reduced in
their individual taxation bills which incentivised work. We took
over in March 2011 and we hit the bottom in March 2012. At that
point this was designed to allow us to move forward, have a
sustainable level of investment by the consumer in our
infrastructure and see the rewards. We have ramped up
investment, from 250 million in 2012 to approximately 550
million this year.
I can state clearly and unambiguously that the suspension of
water charges because of political impetus is abhorrent to me.
However, I accept that if we had not done this Irish Water would
already have been abolished and charges with it. I hope we can
have a meaningful debate across the House in a respectful way,
as it should be, to ensure we get the best possible outcome from
the debate. We should not simply ignore the expertise we are
bringing in which, I am sure, will be agreed by the House,
because of a political or misplaced ideological position. I
understand we do not want to increase the burden on people but
we need to face the reality that if we do not continue with a
reasonable level of charge, it will result in a curtailment of public
services or an increase in taxation.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
7:10 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share my time with Deputy Anne Rabbitte.
I listened to Deputy Alan Farrell's rather grudging acceptance of
the Bill. In years to come, people will look at the story of Irish
Water to date and it will come across as one of the greatest
public policy implementation failures in recent times. Neither the
Deputy nor any of his colleagues at any time acknowledged the
failure of implementation here.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
The Deputy must have missed it.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

I did not hear it too much at the end.
The Deputy spoke about meters being in the ground and having
a use. However, he refused to acknowledge that they were only
there for decoration under an arrangement introduced by his
Government. They do not contribute in any way. That was done
by the previous Government and in particular the former Minister,
Deputy Alan Kelly.
The Deputy spoke of political expediency in introducing the Bill,
but he did not acknowledge the lack of accountability. He did not
acknowledge that people would accept that the construction the
previous Government presented to people to deliver water did
not have democratic legitimacy. As a result, the majority of this
House as it is currently constituted has a mandate to change and
get rid of water fees because of the mistakes and the manner in
which the ball was dropped by the previous Government.
A little humility in terms of the implementation would go a long
way. We all want that respectful debate and the Bill allows for
that to be done with a commission involving experts who know
the story internationally. Had that been done at the beginning of
the Irish Water charade rather than being rammed down the
throat of the people and being set up in a gold-plated way
without having any kind of sense of the delivery of the service,
the story and this debate might be very different. However, we
are here.
Our legal advice is different from that contained in the latest
European Commission contribution. The former Deputy, Marian
Harkin, MEP, is quoting different legal advice in terms of what
derogation means and what water services directive it is using.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

The only opinion that matters.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*

However, the European Commission should also realise that the
construct of water charges and Irish Water never achieved
democratic legitimacy in this country. It never achieved the
support of the people. I hope other events in the past 72 hours
will force the Commission to consider how it is doing its job of
implementing the ideals of the European Union to which we all
subscribe. In terms of representing and reflecting the opinion of
people, it must engage with people's concerns and people have
serious concerns about water and water charges in this country.
While I accept we have different legal opinions, politically the
European Commission needs to put this one on its radar.
I wish to bring to the Minister's attention a number of issues in
the construct of the Bill. Speaking as a rural Deputy, primary
among them is the future role of group water schemes in
delivering water services. For the most part, group water
schemes are accepted as an essential part of water
infrastructure. The members and clients of group water schemes
have no difficulty in paying for the service. The majority of them
are open to the community or part of the community. All this
shows how different the construct of Irish Water could have
been.
It is very important that somebody from the National Federation
of Group Water Schemes should sit on the commission to bring
that experience to bear and bring the views of those who will
continue to pay water charges to that table. It is a very Irish way
to deliver water through the group water scheme network. Many
communities, if they had depended on a State organisation to
deliver water, would still be waiting for water, but community-led
activity with support from the Department through subsidies
ensured they got water.
I have always said we should consider the group water scheme
model of delivery in other areas, for instance, broadband, to get
services into those areas where central government puts it to the
end of the queue or where private companies never bother. It is
essential that the voice of group water schemes and their users
are represented on the commission and that their views are
listened to and not just ticked off.
I welcome the commitment that the capitation that was reduced
in line with the 100 grant will be increased. We put huge
pressures and demands on group water schemes, which is as it
should be for delivering an essential service. It is important that
it be delivered properly and healthily. We also need to give them
support in doing that. During the years there has been a very
good relationship between the former Department, the federation
and the various schemes and it is important that continues.
There is a commitment in the programme for Government to
continue the subsidies that were provided under the CLR
programme for bringing water into the most remote areas of the
country that can still not get it. It is important that this
commitment is fulfilled. There are still areas which do not have
huge populations but where there are young families who may be
the basis of renewing a community and they need to have water.
Without the old CLR programme they will not get it.
In that vein, I have noticed a trend in the few planning
applications we have seen in recent times, which thankfully are
beginning to increase, whereby the water connection fee being
charged by Irish Water and local authorities is extraordinary and
bordering on extortionate. If we want to encourage families back
into rural communities, we need to assist them and not penalise
them with development levies and then with a separate water
connection fee. In one case a family with two young babies trying
to build a house in a rural community are being charged 2,400
just to connect their house, which is not that far away. We need
to look at that in an holistic way.
Perhaps the Minister, Deputy Heather Humphreys, working with
the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, can look at the way water
connection fees are constructed. I accept that they have to be
charged, but they should be charged in a way that encourages
people and does not penalise them for wanting to move into a
rural area.
I want to give credit to the people who work for Irish Water for
the central role they have successfully played in the important
task of planning. We have identified that it is important for a
water utility to have an overarching role as we move forward.
Notwithstanding my criticism of Irish Water - I can only speak for
the staff in the west region - I have always acknowledged that its
team did this very well. We did not need such a large institution
to be created in such a gold-plated manner, but that is what
happened under the watch of the Minister's predecessor. We
needed something much smaller with the ability to react in a
speedy manner. We needed a body that could work with the local
authority staff who knew the connections on the ground. That is
something Irish Water has done well.
The notion that there will be a collapse in the amount of money
we are spending on water infrastructure does not add up. If
Deputies compare the amount of money spent in recent years
with the amount provided directly for councils during Fianna Fil's
time in government, they will find that we were spending more
on capital infrastructure than Irish Water has been spending.
While I accept that moneys will be better spent by a national co-
ordinating body, I do not agree that we need the big, gold-
plated, larger-than-life operation that Irish Water has been up to
now. I know the word "humility" is not in the dictionary or the
pattern of behaviour of the Minister's immediate predecessor. In
the Minister's approach to the new commission in the next nine
months, he must acknowledge what was done wrong. He must
acknowledge the occasions on which legislation and regulations
were rushed through the Chamber in a band-aid style manner in
the hope that the legitimacy that had flowed away from Irish
Water from its establishment would somehow return. That could
not be rectified, which is why we are here now. I do not think the
legitimacy of water charges will ever be won back because of the
disaster that was Irish Water. We should now recreate a water
delivery mechanism that will achieve the support of people, work
on a national basis in conjunction with the regional plans and the
local authorities and meet the water infrastructure needs of a
21st century country. That must be done in a manner that will
instil confidence from the outset.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
7:20 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Anne Rabbitte (Galway East, Fianna Fail)Link to this: Individually | In
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the Water
Services (Amendment) Bill 2016. Like my Fianna Fil colleagues,
I support the Bill. I will not discuss the various legal clarifications
that are outstanding at this time. As a result of the Bill which
reflects the first part of Fianna Fil's agreement to facilitate a
minority Government, water charges will be suspended
immediately. I thank the Minister for outlining the timeframe the
other day. The suspension period will begin on 1 July, when the
work of the commission will kick in. We should receive a report
on how it is going in December. The special Oireachtas committee
will report back in March and the Dil will subsequently vote on
its recommendations. I understand that if the committee has not
fully completed its work, the Minister can determine that the
timeframe available to it needs to be expanded.
My colleague, Deputy Dara Calleary, has spoken really well about
rural schemes and I do not need to rehash what has been said.
One of the reasons we as a party did not support water charges
in the very beginning was that we did not believe people should
pay for water that was not drinkable. Like many other Deputies, I
have experience of this in my home area of east Galway. I live in
Portumna where the water is chlorinated on a regular basis
because its quality is not great. Eight miles out the road in
Woodford there are lead pipes with asbestos connections which
are regularly broken. The people of Woodford have waited 15
years for these pipes and asbestos connections to be improved.
The footpaths have not been repaired during that time. It was
only last year, following the establishment of Irish Water, that
they realised they would never have the road repaired because
they had gone from No. 11 to No. 33 on the waiting list. I refer
to Main Street in Woodford. Although funding was subsequently
sought and - fair play to Galway County Council and the
Department - the road was repaired, I suggest that in itself was a
signal that the pipes were not going to be repaired.
There are other issues with Irish Water in Loughrea, 20 km away.
When rain falls, the back gardens of houses in the Coscorrig
estate are completely flooded. I suggest this is happening
continuously because no one in Irish Water is answerable. We are
not feeling its funding coming to us. We could not feel the value
of the Irish Water infrastructure because we believed it was a
quango. In fact, it was more about public relations and the
propaganda of selling its image than it was about giving benefits
to people on the ground. The people of Loughrea are still subject
to a boil water notice. We cannot get answers when we ask when
they will come off it. This issue is having an impact not only on
the people of Loughrea but also on the people of Craughwell,
further into the county, who are included in the same water
scheme. I am trying to build a picture to show the Minister how
Irish Water has failed the people of east Galway. I am not just
talking about the rural schemes in the villages; I am also talking
about towns. Portumna, Woodford, Loughrea and Craughwell
have all been affected. People were paying their water charges all
the while, even though they felt really reluctant to do so because
they were receiving such a poor service. The water was not
drinkable and subject to a boil water notice. The authorities in
Portumna cannot apply for a blue flag because there is no reason
to believe the water supply in the locality will be of sufficient
quality two years in a row.
The Minister might say the problems I have mentioned are not all
of Irish Water's doing, but I suggest they can be attributed to its
failure to put in place an overarching umbrella to support us.
When I sat on Galway County Council, we struggled to get clear-
cut answers from representatives of Irish Water. When they came
before us, they were unable to give us definite answers. They
could not give a timeframe for delivery, for example. Everything
needs to be subject to time management. People need to receive
feedback, but we were not getting the relevant feedback. Both
parties have agreed to this legislation which will send this issue
out to a commission in order that people can talk about it. We
need to find a deliverable solution that will ensure the
infrastructure - the pipes and personnel, etc. - will be in place
before people on the ground are ever asked to pay water charges
again. There is a need for a a timeframe for anything that needs
to be delivered. People do not want to pay for water that they
cannot drink. They should not have to go down the road to
SuperValu or Aldi to buy water, while paying water charges at the
same time. I do not want to have to represent people in such
circumstances. I do not believe we should have to pay for water
if we cannot drink it. I do not have to say anything more than
that. I welcome the Bill and look forward to what will come out of
the report.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)Link to this: Individually |
I welcome the opportunity to speak to this important legislation.
Some Members of the Dil would have suggested it could never
be facilitated. We would not be discussing it if it were not for the
composition of this Dil. I compliment my colleague, Deputy
Barry Cowen, and the other members of the Fianna Fil
negotiating team for ensuring this legislation would be debated in
the Dil and part of the arrangement for facilitating a minority
Government.
I know that representatives of Sinn Fin like to hop up and down.
They are masters of the art of expressing sheer indignation.
When they are representing people's views, they show how
outraged they are about this, that and the other. They put
proposals before the Dil in its early stages during Private
Members' business as part of an effort to claim some political
credit, even though they absented themselves in having any
hand, act or part in the negotiations and talks on the formation
of a Government. They did not consider supporting a minority
Fine Gael Government or a minority Fianna Fil Government.
They did not consider abstaining to enable some formation to
come together in the national interest. They did not feel a duty to
alleviate the need to return to the country in a second general
election.
This legislation will suspend water charges for a nine-month
period.
From 1 July, anyone who has been paying water charges will not
have to pay any for nine months. It will afford an opportunity for
all Members, after the commission has investigated and reported
back, to debate fully where we go from here. My party has stated
it is opposed to water charges, like the majority of Members of
the Dil. If the majority stay true to their commitment, water
charges will not be reintroduced.
How did we reach this point? As previous speakers said, we
reached it because of the manner in which the previous
Government - initially the then Minister and now European
Commissioner, Phil Hogan, and subsequently Deputy Alan Kelly -
went about the creation and establishment of Irish Water. It was
an unbelievable series of disasters. What we saw was possibly
the worst ever introduction and implementation of a public policy
with U-turn after U-turn. First, PPS numbers were to be
mandatory, with the claim that there was no way it could be done
without them, but, lo and behold, that was changed. Second, a
fee structure was put in place which, again, could not be
changed, but, lo and behold, a conservation grant was
introduced. In itself, the grant was the biggest con job of all
times. Regardless of whether somebody paid for water or
whether they used 10 litres a week or 110 litres a day, everyone
received the same amount under the heading of conservation
grant. Like many of my colleagues, I saw old age pensioners who
did not have the wherewithal to face another tax wondering how
they would pay their water charges. The previous Government
gave itself much wriggle room and leeway to change and modify
policy to suit the political reality at the time, yet no leeway or
concession was given to some elderly people who had failed to
apply for the conservation grant owing to their age, or who were
not able apply online because they had no family support, or who
were afraid to deal with Irish Water in any manner or means.
With a deadline set in stone, they missed out on the 100 grant.
No leeway was given to them, but there was plenty for the
Government as it moved from crisis to crisis when establishing
Irish Water.
Irish Water was established on the premise that it would be able
to borrow off balance sheet and, accordingly, bring forward a
large-scale investment programme in water infrastructure around
the country. That was right as a large investment is needed in
water infrastructure. However, the Government went about
spending 500 million on water meters, which are not used, and
over 100 million on consultants to set up Irish Water. In its first
year of operation Irish Water lost 22 million. I do not know how
losing 22 million could be considered to be good practice in
investing in large-scale development, but I suppose it is down to
how the original legislation establishing Irish Water was
introduced in the Dil. In that particular week I remember that
we on this side of the House were ridiculed for merely
questioning the time given to debate the legislation. We were
shot down and it was deemed that the debate on the Bill would
be guillotined. Less than three hours were given to debate one of
the most important Bills to pass through the last Dil. By virtue
of the fact that it went from having a majority of 30 seats to
being 30 short, I hope and expect the Government realises that
those on the Opposition benches have ideas and an important
role to play in the scrutiny of legislation. That explains why this
legislation is being debated in the Dil now.
It is disingenuous when one sees Labour Party Members
introducing legislation similar to that against which they actually
voted in the previous Seanad. Fianna Fil brought forward
legislation in the Seanad to ensure Irish Water would always
remain a public utility. At the time the Labour Party Members of
the Seanad voted against it, claiming it was not needed. It is
amazing how a person's opinion can change when he or she
moves from the Government to the Opposition benches. Just like
Deputy Alan Kelly when Minister for the Environment, Community
and Local Government tried to fool the electorate and failed, I do
not believe they will be fooled by the Labour Partys most recent
proposals.
Under the Water Services Act 2007, if there is a problem with or
a leak from public sewerage under a public roadway or footpath,
it is the responsibility of Irish Water. Before that, it was down to
the local authority to deal with it. Whether it was on purpose or
an error in the 2007 Act, a problem has emerged with public
sewerage in older housing estates. For example, many local
authority houses on Green Road, in OGrowney Drive and St.
Bridgets Terrace in Mullingar have been bought out. To keep
costs down when such estates were being built, the sewer pipes
were not placed along the main road or the back lane. Instead,
they were placed right at the back door of the houses.
Accordingly, if there is a blockage in the sewer pipes, it is
deemed to be the house owner's responsibility, even though it is
actually a public sewer. These home owners are being penalised
as Irish Water will not correct the problem. This needs to be
examined. It is not the house owner's fault that when the houses
were constructed, the pipes were not placed along the main road
or in a public space.
Again today we heard the European Union's opinion on whether
we can have derogation in the case of Irish Water.
Sometimes, when one hears the European Union coming out on
cases such as this, it seems like it is meddling in the national
affairs of a particular country. For all of the positives which were
debated at length in this House only yesterday in the light of
Brexit, when we hear the European Union stating it will
determine whether we can implement the will of the people
through this legislation, we do not have to wonder why some
people are fed up with it or why some actually voted in the way
they did in the recent referendum in the United Kingdom.
On the whole, this is welcome legislation. As I said, it gives an
opportunity to suspend water charges for a period of nine
months, during which time we will have an opportunity to
consider a funding model that is fair and equitable and that will
not place an unnecessary financial burden or hardship on people.
Let us remember the way the original legislation was introduced.
It was introduced on the basis that a person in receipt of an old
age non-contributory pension of 230 a week who was struggling
to survive was to pay the exact same annual amount in water
charges as someone like me. The Minister may disagree, but that
is the case. I am thinking of an old age pensioner living alone in
a local authority house who is receiving 230 a week and paying
rent, electricity bills and prescription charges. That person simply
could not survive. The outgoing Government in its introduction of
water charges never once took account of a person's ability to
pay or thought of the person who could not afford further
charges, who was living hand to mouth and waiting for Friday to
arrive every week in order to collect his or her old age pension.
This is not made up; it is factual. It is welcome that from 1 July
water charges will be suspended.
I wish the commission well in its deliberations and coming
forward with proposals that will ensure we can raise the
necessary funding to make the investment needed in towns and
villages across my constituency and in every other in order that
we can see them develop and grow. At the same time, the
charges must not be put on the backs of ordinary, decent
working people.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
7:40 pm
end .main
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Eamon Scanlon (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)Link to this: Individually | In

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about this issue. I am
coming at it from a different side in that I am speaking on behalf
of those who are being billed twice.
In Sligo and, I am sure, other counties Veolia was given the
contract some years ago for the implementation of the water
scheme and the collection of charges. At an earlier stage, we
contacted it to point out that people were being charged twice,
that they were being charged once by Veolia and again by Irish
Water. Some months ago, when I contacted Irish Water, it was
very helpful and at the time resolved the issues involved. People
were to get a refund of what they had paid. However, more
recently, when I contacted Irish Water again, the situation had
been more difficult and the result often depends on the person to
whom I am talking.
The point is that once people are billed by one utility, they should
not be billed again. It is wrong that people have to pay twice.
When people are with Veolia, they pay 20 per quarter for the
meter, or 80 a year, and if they have a second meter, they pay
again. For this, they receive 50,000 gallons of water a year and
then pay for any water they use above that amount, as many
people do. I would like to see this issue sorted out.
What will happen to those who are part of group schemes? They
organised themselves as a group and applied for and received
grants to provide water schemes. In some cases they had to
contribute 4,000 or 5,000 individually. They have been paying
for water continuously during the years. What does the Minister
propose to do for them? I believe they are being overcharged
and it is wrong that they should have to pay when others do not.
I ask the Minister to try to resolve the issue.
Sligo County Council has made an application in respect of
sewerage schemes. There is a group scheme that takes in
Grange, Tubbercurry and Enniscrone, all of which are under
severe pressure. The applications in respect of these schemes
have been in place for many years and there have been a few
false dawns. I ask the Minister to use his good offices to see
whether they can be progressed as quickly as possible.
end .main
Add your comment
end .sidebar
end .stripe-*
Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)Link to this: Individually |

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the commentary from
colleagues on all sides of the House. I thank Members for their
contributions to the debate. This is a very short Bill and there has
been little discussion on the technicalities of the legislation. I
hope we will have an opportunity to do this on Committee Stage
in the coming days when we will go through the Bill line by line
to make sure we get it right.
Essentially, the thinking behind the legislation is clear. It is about
trying to create a window of opportunity to have a less politicised
discussion on how we pay for domestic water services in terms of
the supply of clean, safe water, which clearly is not the case in
parts of the country. That is evidence, if we needed it, that we
need to change the system we use to deliver water. The previous
system was operated through the local authorities which were
under-funded in many cases. Although there were many good
engineers within the local authorities, the reality is we had a very
disjointed system, with individual local authorities trying to do
their own thing. When we look at the statistics, the results are
shocking; some 49% of water leaks through pipes before it
reaches its supposed destination, thousands of people are
subject to boil water notices for long periods and raw sewage is
going into harbours, rivers and lakes.
The House does not need me to make the arguments on the
need for an improved water treatment and delivery system for
households across Ireland. I hope the discussion in the next nine
months will be about how we do this, who pays for it and how it
is to be paid for. The one constant in this debate is that
everybody accepts that we need to pay for water and that this is
not a free resource in terms of its treatment and management.
What the debate is about is whether we should pay for it through
general taxation, whether there should be a household
contribution element for the amount of water used, whether the
volumes used should be paid for in full by households or whether
some other metric should be used.
I appeal to other parties during this process to contribute to that
debate. Within the next couple of days - certainly this week - we
will have the announcement of an expert commission. I have
tried to ensure a real balance on the commission in terms of legal
and technical expertise and knowledge, including an input from
group water schemes. This interaction with the commission will
certainly be facilitated in the next five months in order that we
can come to a set of recommendations on which it will be up to
us to decide as the democratically elected representatives of the
people.
For some, this will not be an easy process because many people
have already committed politically to an outcome, which in some
ways is not helpful to the process. Fine Gael has a political policy
position on how water should be paid for, as do Fianna Fil and
Sinn Fin. No party has a majority in this House anymore;
therefore, we are trying to put in place a structure to put some
questions and options on the table which make sense, first and
foremost, for households in the provision of water, in the belief
that the delivery system will work for them and that it will be fair.
If there are two neighbours who use dramatically different
volumes of water, for whatever reason, is it fair that they
effectively pay the same amount for that resource through
general taxation? It is not and neither is it fair to ask somebody
who cannot afford it to pay for water. There is now such a
structure in place.
I thank Sinn Fin for supporting this legislation, even though its
position on it is very different from mine. I hope it is an
indication that it will buy into the process and try to work with
and contribute to it. In nine months time we will have an all-
party Oireachtas committee which will bring forward
recommendations to the House, regardless of how uncomfortable
they may be for some of us. There is a risk for everybody, but
probably more so for the Government parties than for anybody
else. We will, however, take on board the committee's
recommendations and have an honest and informed discussion
without the constant political manoeuvring whereby all political
parties and none try to outmanoeuvre each other to be more
popular on this issue. Real anger and resentment have been
encouraged through the water debates that have taken place on
the streets and in this House. My job as Minister is to deal with
the issue.
As people get to know me, I hope they will get to know that I am
someone who wants to listen to other perspectives. I might not
agree with them all of the time, but there should be consensus in
the House on water as a resource and how we deliver and should
pay for it in order that as Governments change there will not be
radical changes of policy on the delivery of something as
fundamental as water. If we did that in the case of electricity, the
country would not be able to function. If we did it in the case of
gas, we would have huge difficulties and interruptions in supply
and funding models. It is a little like what the Minister, Deputy
Simon Harris, is trying to do in the health service because it is a
fundamental service for the public. There is no more fundamental
provision of a resource into people's homes than the provision of
water and, as Minister, I will try to facilitate that process.
I will be in Brussels next week to meet the European
Commissioner for the Environment who I know quite well
because he is also the marine Commissioner and I was formerly
the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I know him well
from negotiations on fisheries and he is a very decent and
straight individual. I have already spoken to him at length on the
telephone. I want to go to Brussels in person to explain what we
are trying to do. For an outsider, the resentment, marches,
protests and anger seem like a very strange process in the
politics of water provision, especially to people in other countries
who have been paying domestic water charges for a generation,
or certainly for decades. I am not pretending for one minute that
it is contrived. The anger many people feel towards water
charges is genuine and to try to get acceptance of a new
financing model will not be easy in that context. There have been
a lot of mistakes made which have led to that anger, but there is
also politics being played which has encouraged it. When I talk
about trying to take the politics out of water provision, I am not
talking about trying to create some cosy consensus with which
everybody will be comfortable but rather about having an
informed debate to make a decision that can last through various
changes of Government, which will undoubtedly happen in the
next number of decades. We should have a consistent and
sustainable approach to water provision which is consistent with
our obligations and commitments, both nationally and
internationally. It is something we want to embrace rather than
have forced on us by a water framework directive.
The issue of public ownership has been raised repeatedly. There
is no privatisation agenda in the Government on water services.
If one looks at the legislation that safeguards this, for any future
Government to privatise Irish Water, it would have to obtain
permission to do so through a plebiscite. It would require a
referendum for it to happen. That is the length to which the last
Government went to to reassure people that there was no
privatisation agenda. The previous model of water delivery
whereby local authorities were forced to outsource the building
and management of water treatment facilities to private
companies was leading to privatisation by stealth. Irish Water is
taking back ownership of many of wastewater treatment
facilities; it is a reversal of what was happening previously in the
context of privatisation. I am open to suggestions others may
have to provide further reassurances in maintaining Irish Water
as a publicly owned utility and to reassure people that there is no
privatisation agenda. Let us look at what we can do in that
regard. I have listened to what people have been saying, but it is
not as simple as holdindg a referendum on water infrastructure
given the complexities around private ownership of much of the
water infrastructure in rural Ireland through group water
schemes. People are perfectly happy with the current
infrastructure which is working quite well and which they are
financing. For group water schemes, we are moving to ensure
the financial models and supports in place before the introduction
of the water conservation grant will be returned to. We have
spoken to the National Federation of Group Water Schemes about
this and it seems to be very happy with what we are proposing to
do. We are also proposing to increase the grant aid available for
private wells and their maintenance. There is nothing to fear for
group water schemes or those who have been paying for their
water for many years.
There are contracts in place to finish phase 1 of the water
metering programme and we will see it through. There is a
second phase which is more complex in providing meters in
apartment complexes and other housing units that are not as
easy to access. Decisions will be made in the future in that
regard; we are not making any decision on it right now.
I am not going to start holding a stick over people because of
their legal views in interpreting the Water Framework Directive.
All I am saying is the European Commission's view on it does not
come as a surprise to Fine Gael and it should not come as a
surprise to anybody else either. Let us wait and see how it
assesses the issue. There will be legal expertise in the
commission which will look at the issues and listen to the
arguments and what people have to say. It will make an
independent assessment and recommendations in the five
months it will be working on the issue. Let us wait and see what
it will state. I am happy to let it do this, but some people seem to
be hugely surprised by and contest what the European
Commission has been stating on the issue. It should not come as
a surprise at all.
This process is about trying to fix some of the failings to which
people have been referring repeatedly. I appeal to them to work
with us on the issue.
Who knows, in the not too distant future, Fianna Fil or Sinn Fin
may be in government and it will be their responsibility to try to
ensure we deliver an improved water provision each year and
make sure fewer people will be subject to boil water notices and
fewer families will be affected by public health issues that are
impacted on by pollution and poor water quality.
When we look at what Irish Water is planning to do in dealing
with leaks between now and 2021, its targets are clear. It aims to
move from a figure of 49% to 38%. This can only be done over a
phased period. All of the leaks cannot be plugged overnight. It is
hugely expensive, but Irish Water is committed to continuing that
process. Not only that, we will essentially have an observation
body which is also being set up as part of the nine-month
process and which will report quarterly to the Oireachtas to
ensure the targets which are being set in the business plan for
Irish Water and on which the regulator is insisting are being met.
We will have an independent monitoring body to report to the
committee and the Oireachtas to make sure that will be the case.
That is part of what we are trying to do in creating an acceptance
and an understanding of the challenges Irish Water faces and
how it is responding to them on behalf of the State which will
continue to own it into the future.
I look forward to hearing what Members will have to say on
Committee Stage. I ask Members to try to facilitate the
movement of this legislation as quickly as possible. Let us not
forget that we are effectively introducing a freeze on water
charges from 1 July, in a few days time. By the time the
legislation is finalised and enacted, it will effectively be
retrospective for a number of days or a week or two. That is fine
and there is nothing extraordinary about it. However, the sooner
we get it through, the sooner we will provide certainty. It will
allow the commission to get on with its work and allow the
process to begin to, I hope, resolve some of the issues that have
been the source of a lot of frustration for Members opposite. It
will allow us to move on from this issue, as I think many of us
would like to do, and focus on the many other challenges that the
Government and the House have to face.
Lethal .
TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR THE WATER METERING
INSTALLING PROGRAM MUST STOP
THE WATER METERS ARE THE CASH COW
NO MORE WATER METERS TO BE INSTALLED

European Community on Environmental regulations 2007
Co Councils on Water abstractions co cork pdf doc
EPA Ireland Table of Contents- Part Two - Environmental

Protection Agency ... Table of Contents- Part Two List of
Figures xi ... EU Water Framework Directive. ... Water
Services Act, 2007
http://www.epa.ie/pubs/advice/water/wastewater/code
%20of%20practice%20for%20single%20houses/Code
%20of%20Practice%20Part%202.pdf
Laois County Council RECEIVING WATER
IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...
Receiving Water Impact Assessment: Ballycolla WwTP ...
European Communities Environmental ... Regulations
2007
http://www.epa.ie/licences/lic_eDMS/090151b28032d61
7.pdf
European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations ... at
European Community level within the period of ... of the
Directive / Regulations,
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2003/si/722/made/en
/print
FINE GAEL'S CONTEMPT FOR THE IRISH PEOPLE IS
UNDENIABLE!
"Fine Gaels insistence that water charges must remain
shows once again the contempt this party has for the Irish
people.
The public voted to get rid of this tax too far but Fine Gael
is again refusing to listen and is instead intent on doing
Brussels bidding."
WATER AND WASTE WATER CHARGES
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local

Government has stated that the circa 537 million per
annum in Government subvention of Irish Water in 2015
and 2016 will be conditional on the average water charge
for households being 240 per year, subject to final
assessment by the Commission for Energy Regulation.
This average figure has been calculated on the basis of
the projected operational and capital costs of Irish water
based on a high level model and various CSO data. The
CER will be reviewing Irish Water costs in detail to ensure
that only efficiently incurred expenditure is passed on to
customers.
The Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) will make a
final decision on the level of water charges in August,
following public consultation on Irish Waters water
charges plan. It has commenced public consultation on the
tariff structure and design. The CER will outline decisions
in June 2014 based on the outcome of this consultation
and the policy direction of the Minister.
Fine Gaels insistence that water charges must remain
shows once again the contempt this party has for the
Irish people.
The public voted to get rid of this tax too far but Fine
Gael is again refusing to listen and is instead intent on
doing Brussels bidding.
Housing crisis Minister Simon Coveney claims the
country faces millions in fines from our EU overlords if
we dont clean up our act and pay for it by water
charges.
Minister for Housing, Planning, Community & Local

Government Simon Coveney TD (Photo: Gareth Chaney Collins)
European Commission, says the Clown Prince of Cork.
Yet his Government is spending millions of our money
fighting a ruling by the same Commission ordering Apple
to pay Ireland 13billion in back tax.
What Simple Simon is saying is that the big corporates
dont have to pay tax on their massive profits but the public
must pay a levy on their drinking water.
He was referring to the EUs Water Framework Directive
adopted in 2000 which place various obligations on
member states including Ireland.
In the 17 years since Irish governments, including the Fine
Gael/Labour austerity coalition, ignored these obligations
and instead spent our money on more pressing matters....
such as bailing out banks and their bondholders.
They blew 500million on unnecessary water meters when
the cash could easily have covered all the work needed to
be done on our wastewater treatment plants.
But then again, building sewage treatment plants would
not have meant tens of millions for the consultants and a
lucrative contract for you know who.
Isnt it also amazing how the Government can allow
Brussels to get involved in imposing a tax on Irish
households for a water supply yet the Transport Minister
cant intervene in a dispute that threatens to deny entire
swathes of the country of a bus
service.
At the last election, voters spoke against water charges
but out-of-touch Fine Gael is still not listening.
Again it underestimates the outrage that spawned a
protest movement that has changed the political
landscape and almost consigned
Labour to the political dustbin.
This is another Keep the Recovery Going moment for the
Blueshirts who just cant get it through their thick right-
wing make the poor pay for everything skulls that water
charges are dead and buried.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny TD (Photo: Gareth Chaney Collins)
Exactly one year ago today Enda Kenny claimed

abolishing Irish Water would be a seriously historic
mistake.
That came just hours after the then Agriculture Minister Mr
Coveney appeared to suggest the hated utility should be
scrapped.
This ideologically unsound stuff from Simple Simon was
soon retracted and was forced to deny his party was doing
a U-turn. He added he was talking about trying to reflect
what people want in Ireland.
A year on he is refusing accept what the people want and
doesnt have the guts to tell Brussels to get stuffed.
Coveney appears willing to allow the collapse of the
Government for an issue that was decisively decided at
the last election which shows his judgement as well as his
courage are lacking.
Instead weve had the usual nonsense from ministers
claiming we must have water charges because the rest
of Europe has them.
This may be true but other EU states dont have PRSI, a
Universal Social Charge and a pension levy on top of
their general income tax.
They do have a free health service that doesnt require
their people to take out private health insurance to
insure they dont die while waiting for treatment, which
is in reality another form of tax.
http://www.tipperarycoco.ie/water-services/water-and-
waste-water-charges
For the attention of Plumbing Services Providers:
The closing date for receipt of tenders has been extended to

3pm on March 20th 2017
http://www.tipperarycoco.ie/sites/default/files/Informati
on%20Sheet%20for%20Plumbers%20re%20the
%20Framework%20for%20Plumbing%20Services%20for
%20Local%20Authorities.pdf
European political framework for environmental co ... and
the European Community signed ... The regulations are
designed to protect water
1. General Environmental Matters
2. ESB/CVI Community Environment Awards 2003
2. The State Were In Resource Pack
3. ENFO Workshop on Tour
3. Green Scene at Dublin Zoo
4. Green-Schools - a continuing success story
4. Scoileanna Glasa scal a bhfuil ag ir fs leis
5. New Fairtrade Mark
5. Eco-Unesco Young Environmentalist Awards 2003
6. Gradaim Comhshaolaithe ga ECO-UNESCO 2003
7. New Enterprise Ireland Environmental Website
7. Eighth VSI Work Camp at NEEC
8. NEEC and An Taisce Move Mountain (to ENFO)
8. Leaping into Action for a Better Dunlaoghaire-
Rathdown
2. Water Quality
9. Dublin Bay Project
10. European Blue Flag Awards 2003
10. Birdwatch Ireland Water Seminar 2003
11. Seiminer Uisce Lucht Faire an na hireann
11. National Water Conservation Programme
12. Dublin Region Water Conservation
14. South Eastern River Basin Management Programme
15. Eastern River Basin Management Programme
15. Water Framework Directive

16. Water Management Consultation Paper
16. New Nitrates Regulations
3. Air Quality, Energy and Nuclear Safety Matters

17. Review of Implementation of the National Climate
Change Strategy
17. Coal Ban Extended to Four New Areas
17. Alternative Energy Requirement Programme
18. Air Quality Monitoring Annual Report (2001)
18. SEI Solar Conference and Study Tour
19. European Car Free Day 2003
19. L Saor Charranna na hEorpa 2003
4. Planning
20. Tidy Towns Competition 2003
20. City Neighbourhoods Competition 2003
21. Comrtas Comharsanachta Cathrach 2003
22. Urban and Village Renewal
5. Natural Heritage
23. National Tree Week 2003
23. Seachtain Nisinta na gCrann
24. Grading of Monuments Discussion Document
6. Waste Management
25. Environment Fund for 2003
25. Waste Management (Packaging) Regulations 2003
27. WEEE Taskforce Launched
27. New European Standard for Recycled Aggregates Use
7. EU and International Environmental
Matters
28. Environment Council
28. Commission on Sustainable Development
29. 5th Environment for Europe Ministerial Conference
30. World Environment Day
31. New EU Eco-label for Tourist Accommodation
31. EU LIFE-Environment Programme 2004
Appendices
Appendix 1: Green Flag Schools 2003
Appendix 2: Young Environmentalist Awards 2003
Appendix 3: Blue Flag Awards 2003
Appendix 4: Urban and Village Renewal Allocations
2003
Appendix 5: Anti-Litter Enforcement Statistics 2002
Addenda to Appendix 7 of Environment Bulletin
Issue 55
Calendar of Events
Recent Publications
Websites
General Environmental Matters
ESB/CVI Community Environment Awards 2003

The closing date for the ESB/CVI Community Environment
Awards 2003 was Friday, 13 June. The awards first began
in 1998 and have attracted an increasing number of
community environmental projects from individuals and
groups all around the country.
Entries were invited in four categories:
* Natural Environment
* Heritage
* Community Development, and
* Youth/Education Projects.
All of these categories reflect the interdependence and

delicate balance between communities, business and
industry and the environment. The overall winner will
receive E4,000 while the first in each category will receive
E2,000. Commended projects will be awarded E1,000 and
local winners will receive E500 each. The award money
must be spent on the development of the projects.
The ESB/CVI Community Environment Awards were

designed to acknowledge the efforts of ordinary people
who endeavour to protect and improve their environment
and to encourage others to follow suit. They provide an
essential platform to encourage and help communities
move towards sustainable development. The winners of
these awards will be announced on 16 September, 2003.
Further information:
Orla Ryan or Claire Guiney, WHPR, 5 Ely Place, Dublin 2.
tel: 01.669 0030 or 087.234 2416 fax: 01.669 0039
e-mail: orla.ryan@ogilvy.com
The State Were In Resource Pack

Mr. Noel Dempsey, TD, Minister for Education & Science
recently launched a video-based classroom resource pack
developed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The
resource pack has been developed for the EPA to
accompany their series of TV programmes entitled "The
State Were In". The resource pack is based on six of the
programmes, and it provides a set of student tasks and
worksheets for each one. The six programmes deal with
the key environmental issues facing Irish society at the
start of the new millennium, as follows:
- programme one, "A Tigers Tale", acts as an

introduction and overview of all the key issues
- programme two, "Crystal Clear", deals with water

quality and water pollution
- programme three, "Traffic", deals with the growth of

traffic congestion and examines some solutions and traffic
management strategies
- programme four, "A Climate of Change", looks at the
problem of climate change and global warming
- programme five, "Waste Land", focuses on the issue

of waste management and some alternative strategies to
land-filling of waste
- programme six, "Green Power", examines the

problem of burning fossil fuels and looks to alternative
energy sources
The pack, in combination with the video, is designed as a

unit for transition year students. It uses an
interdisciplinary approach and can be used particularly
within the Geography or Science subject areas.
The six units of the pack can be approached individually or

studied as a full Transition Year Environmental Education
Module. The pack provides three different groups of tasks:
- short question worksheets are provided for each
programme, demanding careful viewing by the student
and should ensure a full understanding of the issues
- activities are provided which allow for further

exploration of the issues. These include group work,
brainstorming, map work and individual research, and
- the opportunity to extend the depth of study through

individual and group fieldwork investigations is provided.
Templates for questionnaires and the research
methodology are also provided.
This resource pack suits the transition year philosophy and

guidelines. It is skills based and allows the student to
extend their interests and research skills through a range
of different methodologies. It will engage the student in
active learning strategies based on issues and activities
largely within the local community.
The resource pack also looks forward to the new Leaving

Certificate Geography Syllabus, using the Fieldwork
Investigation Techniques, which are proposed within the
Geographical Investigation Unit of the new syllabus. These
student activities will provide an ideal preparation for the
investigative skills proposed within the new syllabus.
The resource pack should also provide an interesting and

stimulating way of informing and empowering students
towards the environmental issues that face all of us.
Geraldine Ruane, Environmental Protection Agency,
Johnstown Castle Estate, County Wexford.
tel: 053.60633 fax: 053.60699
e-mail: g.ruane@epa.ie
ENFO Workshops on Tour

A series of new initiatives have been developed to
improve the availability of ENFO services outside the
Greater Dublin Area. School and community groups who
cannot easily visit the ENFO premises in St Andrew Street
for lectures and workshops will be able to avail of visits
from a group of young graduates who will travel to a
number of counties in the South and West of the country
to give ENFO environmental workshops.
Ms. Kate Bradbury, a marine biologist, will lead the team
and it is planned to give workshops in up to two hundred
schools and community centres reaching an audience of
up to 60,000 people in the following localities:
* Waterford
- Waterford, Dungarvan and Tramore
* Wexford
- Wexford, Enniscorthy and Gorey
* Tipperary
- Thurles, Templemore and Roscrea
* Offaly
- Birr, Tullamore and Clara
* Westmeath
- Athlone
* Galway
- Galway City, Athenry and Ballinasloe
* Mayo
- Castlebar, Westport, Newport,Belmullet,
Killala and Ballina
The ENFO Workshop on Tour initiative will initially run as a

pilot project for eight weeks in September and October
2003, and pending assessment of its success may become
a regular feature of the ENFO service. People throughout
the country can also continue to make the most of ENFOs
touring exhibitions, ENFO publications and information at
their local authority office, and from ENFO by phone, post,
e-mail, and internet at www.enfo.ie.
Brendan Keenan, ENFO - the Environmental Information
Service, 17 St. Andrew Street, Dublin 2.
tel: 01.888 3925 fax: 01.888 3947
e-mail: brendan_keenan@environ.irlgov.ie
Green Scene at Dublin Zoo

As part of its strategy to engage in partnerships with other
organisations involved in environmental information,
education and awareness, ENFO sponsored the successful
Green Scene at Dublin Zoo for three weeks during March
and April this year. The fantastic weather brought a record
attendance of 69,848 people during this period.
Twenty large leaf-shaped panels were each printed with a

different environmental message, relating to issues such
as the need for recycling of materials, conservation of
energy, and the importance of biodiversity. A different
panel was placed at each of twenty species enclosures.
Everyone arriving at the Zoo was given a map showing the
Green Scene trail formed by the twenty panels.
The Zoos Education Centre was converted into a Green

Village with an ENFO exhibition, and stands of ENFO
publications, together with stands from a number of
environmental NGOs. The Australian environmentalist,
Dale Treadwell, thrilled his young fans with wildlife
workshops and fieldtrips around the Zoo.
The modern Zoo has an important role to play in

environmental education and awareness, as well as in
conservation and research, and ENFO was pleased to work
with Dublin Zoos Education Officer, Una Smyth, in
strengthening this aspect of one of the worlds oldest
zoos.
Brendan Keenan, ENFO - the Environmental Information
Service, 17 St. Andrew Street, Dublin 2.
tel: 01.888 3925 fax: 01.888 3947
e-mail: brendan_keenan@environ.irlgov.ie
Green-Schools - a continuing success story
The number of Irish schools receiving the Green Flag
award for their environmental management and
awareness continues to grow rapidly. In this, the 6th year
of the programme:
- 117 schools (15 secondary, 100 primary, 1

Montessori and 1 Training Centre under a pilot scheme)
have received the flag for the first time, and
- a further 57 schools have been awarded a renewal of

their flags, some for the second time, for continuing very
high standards of waste, litter and energy management
over the last number of years.
Green-Schools is an international environmental education

programme and award scheme that promotes and
acknowledges long-term, whole-school action for the
environment. Schools that undertake the programme
examine their own environmental impact with respect to
litter, waste and energy and devise and implement their
own solutions to minimise these impacts. Research
indicates that schools that undertake the Green-Schools

programme are on average:
- reducing their waste to landfill by a half

- achieving and maintaining litter-free environments,
and
- saving large amounts in energy consumption.
To date, 1,370 Irish schools (over one third of all Irish

schools) are participating in the programme, of which 269
schools in total have been awarded the Green Flag. This
makes the Irish Green-Schools programme one of the most
successful at an international level with over 25 countries
across Europe, Africa and the Caribbean undertaking the
programme.
In Ireland, Green-Schools is operated by An Taisce in

partnership with local authorities and sponsored by Coca-
Cola Bottlers Ireland Ltd.
Details of schools awarded the Green Flag in 2003 are

listed at Appendix 1.
Jane Helps, Green-Schools Manager, Environmental
Education Unit, An Taisce, Tailors Hall, Back Lane, Dublin 8
tel: 01.707 7067 fax: 01.454 1802
e-mail: greenschools@antaisce.org
website: www.antaisce.org or www.eco-schools.org
Scoileanna Glasa scal a bhfuil ag ir fs leis

T an lon scoileanna in irinn at ag fil gradam an Bhrait
Ghlais de bharr bainisti comhshaoil agus de bharr an
eolais at acu ar an gcomhshaol seasta ag mad. Anois,
sa s bliain den chlr:
- T an brat faighte ag 115 scoil den chad uair (15

menscoil, 100 bunscoil, 1 Scoil Montessori agus Ionad
amhin Traenla faoi scim pholtach), agus
- T athnuachan danta ar bhrait do 57 scoil eile, cuid
acu den dara huair, mar gheall gur leanadar le bainisti
ardchaighdein dramhaola, bruscair agus fuinnimh le
blianta anuas.
Is clr oideachasil comhshaoil idirnisinta iad na

Scoileanna Glasa agus scim gradaim chomh maith a
chuireann chun cinn gnomhaocht fhad-tarmach ar son
an chomhshaoil ina mbonn pirt ag an scoil ar fad ann.
Scrdaonn na scoileanna at pirteach sa scim an
tionchar a bhonn acu fin ar an gcomhshaol thaobh
bruscair, dramhaola agus fuinnimh agus tagann siad ar
riteach a bhraitheann siad a laghddh an tionchar seo.
Lironn taighde go bhfuil scoileanna a ghlac pirt i gclr
Scoileanna Glasa ar an men:
* Ag cur laghd de leath ar an dramhal a thann chuig

ionaid dramhaola
* Ag cur timpeallachta saor bhruscar ar fil agus
gcoimed, agus
* Ag sabhil go leor thaobh thomhailt fuinnimh.

Go dt seo t 1,370 scoil as irinn (os cionn aon tr de
scoileanna na hireann) ag glacadh pirte sa chlr, agus
astu sin t an brat glas bainte amach ag 269 scoil. D bhr
sin t clr na hireann i Scoileanna Glasa ar an gclr is m
a bhfuil ag ir leis ag an leibhal idirnisinta le os cionn
25 tr as an Eoraip, an Afraic agus an Chairib ag glacadh
pirte sa chlr.
In irinn is iad An Taisce i gcomhphirtocht le hdaris

itila a chuireann an clr ag obair agus faightear
urraocht Coca-Cola Bottlers Ireland Teo.
T sonra maidir leis na scoileanna a bhain gradam an

Bhrait Ghlais amach i 2003 liostilte in Aguisn 1.
Tuilleadh Eolais:
Jane Helps, Bainisteoir Scoileanna Glasa, An tAonad
Oideachais Comhshaoil, An Taisce, Halla an Tillira, Back
Lane, Baile tha Cliath 8.
Teil: 01 707 7067 Faics: 01 454 1802
r-phost: greenschools@antaisce.org
lithren grasin: www.antaisce.org n www.eco-
schools.org
New Fairtrade Mark

On 3 March, 2003, the new international Fairtrade Mark
was launched in Ireland during Fairtrade Fortnight. The
Mark represents a human figure with its arm held high in
the air - a symbol of hope. The Fairtrade Mark is an
independent guarantee that producers in developing
countries receive a fairer price for their products.
Fairtrade Fortnight is the annual two-week event held
during the first two weeks of March to highlight the
benefits of Fairtrade and the availability and quality of
Fairtrade Mark products. During Fairtrade Fortnight,
supporters nationwide held a range of events to generate
awareness and increase both the supply and demand for
Fairtrade Mark products in their local areas.
Events included:
* school presentations
* restaurant canvassing
* church gate promotions
* solidarity group meetings
* coffee mornings
* Fairtrade cookery demonstrations
* dinner parties
* product sampling, and
* Fairtrade fairs.
The range of Fairtrade Marked products available includes

tea, coffee, cocoa, chocolate, bananas and fruit juices.
Product availability has moved from the charity shops to
mainstream supermarkets.
The push to give Fairtrade a stronger presence throughout

Ireland includes Oxfam Ireland's Small Change BIG
DIFFERENCE campaign. This campaign is aimed at local
authorities and currently fourteen councils in Ireland have
adopted Fairtrade policies. They are: Fingal, Dublin,
Wicklow, Meath, Louth, Offaly, Carlow, Clare, Tipperary
South, Galway city, Galway county, Mayo, Monaghan,
Donegal, and Clonakilty Town Council, which is aiming to
become Irelands first Fairtrade town. Adopting a Fairtrade
policy requires a local authority to serve Fairtrade Mark
tea and coffee in their local offices. Many councils are also
now promoting their Fairtrade policies in the community.
Government Departments, including the Departments of
Agriculture and Food, Environment, Heritage and Local
Government, Foreign Affairs, Finance and
Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, are also
now serving Fairtrade Mark coffee.
Fairtrade Mark Ireland, Carmichael House, North Brunswick
Street, Dublin 7.
tel/fax: 01.475 3515
e-mail: info@fair-mark.org
website: www.fairtrade.ie
ECO-UNESCO Young Environmentalist Awards 2003

On 15 May, 2003 An Taoiseach, Mr Bertie Ahern, T.D.
announced the winners of the 2003 Young
Environmentalist Awards.
The senior winning team from Clifden Community School,

were awarded the environmental premier for examining
the effect of pollution on biodiversity on different areas
along the Connemara coastline. The project, entitled A
study of the littoral zones of two sheltered rocky
shorelines in Connemara, attributed the decline in
biodiversity in the Clifden area to pollution caused by the
rapid growth of the town, and called for improvements to
existing infrastructure.
The team from St. Tiernans College, Crossmolina, Co.

Mayo, were awarded the Junior Supreme Award for their
project on Water, entitled "Could you be the solution to
water pollution?" which looked at human impacts on their
local Lough Conn.
The Taoiseach presented the Senior and Junior team

members with a special certificate in recognition of their
achievement, along with a bicycle one of the most
environmentally friendly forms of transport available.
The competition, which is run by ECO-UNESCO and co-
sponsored by Ballygowan is for 12-18 year olds and invites
schools, youth groups and youth clubs nationwide to
submit projects, choosing from one of the five key
environmental areas: Air, Water, Energy, Waste and
Biodiversity. Registered entries for the ECO-UNESCO
Young Environmentalist Awards should reach ECO-UNESCO
at 26 Clare St., Dublin 2 by November each year. Projects
are then carried out between November and February and
completed projects reports must reach ECO-UNESCO by
February.
Since its inauguration in 1999, over 2,500 students have
entered to win the title of Irelands Young
Environmentalist. From the hundreds of schools that
entered nationwide, nine were shortlisted to attend the
finals ceremony, where they each received a presentation
from An Taoiseach.
The 2003 winning projects (listed at Appendix 2.) were

displayed to the public at a special exhibition at ENFO, 17
St Andrew Street, Dublin 2, from 19 to 31 May, 2003. The
awards are implemented under the guidance of the
Department of Education and Science, with support from
the National Development Plan, and can be integrated into
selected schools syllabuses.
Elaine Nevin, National Director or Rowan Oberman,
Programme Coordinator, ECO-UNESCO, 26 Clare Street,
Dublin 2.
tel: 01. 662 5491 fax: 01.662 5493
e-mail: ecounesco@eircom.net
Gradaim Comhshaolaithe ga ECO-UNESCO 2003

Ar an 15 Bealtaine 2003, dfhgair an Taoiseach Bertie
Ahern buaiteoir Ghradaim Comhshaolaithe ga 2003.
Bronnadh an phromhdhuais comhshaoil ar an bhfoireann

shinsireach as Scoil Phobail an Chlochin, as an scrd a
rinneadar ar an ifeacht a bhonn ag truailli ar
bhithagslacht i gceantair agsla ar chsta Chonamara.
Sa tionscnamh seo, ar a tugadh A Study of the littoral
zones of two sheltered rocky shorelines in Connemara,
rinneadh ceangal idir an titim i mbithagslacht i gceantar
an Chlochin agus an truailli at tarlaithe de bharr an
fhis thapa at tagtha ar an mbaile, agus diarr siad obair
fheabhschin a dhanamh ar an infrastructr at ann
faoi lthair.
Bronnadh an tArdGhradam Sisearach ar an bhfoireann as
Coliste Naomh Tiarnin, as Crois Mhaoilona i gCo.
Mhaigh Eo as a dtionscnamh ar Uisce, ar a tugadh Could
you be the solution to water pollution? a bhreathnaigh ar
na tionchair at ag daoine ar Loch Con in aice limhe.
Bhronn an Taoiseach teastas speisialta ar na foirne

Sinsireacha agus Sisearacha mar aitheantas ar a n-acht,
chomh maith le rothar ceann de na modhanna iompair is
cinelta don chomhshaol.
Is comrtas an comrtas, at faoi stiir ECO-UNESCO

agus a fhaigheann fo-urraocht Ballygowan do dhaoine
idir 12-18 bliain daois agus iarrtar ar scoileanna, ar
ghrpa ige agus ar chlubanna ige ar fud na tre
tionscnaimh a sheoladh isteach, agus roghn as an gcig
phromhrimse comhshaoil: Aer, Uisce, Fuinneamh,
Dramhal agus Bithagslacht. Ba chir iontrlacha
clraithe i gcomhair Ghradaim ECO-UNESCO
Comhshaolaithe ga a sheoladh chuig ECO-UNESCO, 26
Clare St., Baile tha Cliath 2 agus iad a bheith faighte
roimh mh na Samhna gach bliain. Dantar na tionscnaimh
idir m na Samhna agus m Feabhra agus ba chir
tionscnaimh chomhlnaithe a sheoladh chuig ECO-
UNESCO roimh m Feabhra.
bunaodh i 1999, t teideal Comhshaola g na
hireann bainte amach ag 2,500 scolire. na cadta
scoil a ghlac pirt go nisinta, cuireadh naoi scoil ar
ghearrliosta chun freastal ar shearmanas deiridh an
chomrtais, agus cuireadh gach scoil in aithne don
Taoiseach.
Taispenadh tionscnaimh bhuacacha 2003 (liostilte in

Aguisn 2. don phobal ag taispentas speisialta a bh ag
ENFO, 17 Srid Aindrias, Baile tha Cliath 2, n 19
Bealtaine go dt 31 Bealtaine 2003. Cuirtear na gradaim le
chile faoi threoir na Roinne Oideachais agus Eolaochta,
le tacaocht n bPlean Forbartha Nisinta, agus is fidir
iad a chur le siollabas scoileanna agsla.
Tuilleadh Eolais:
Elaine Nevin, Stirthir Nisinta n Rowan Oberman,
Comh-ordnir Clr, ECO-UNESCO, 26 Clare Street, Baile
tha Cliath 2.
teil: 01 662 5491 Faics: 01 662 5493
r-phost: ecounesco@eircom.net
New Enterprise Ireland Environmental Website

On 14 April, 2003, An Tnaiste, Mary Harney, T.D.,
launched a new environmental information portal at
www.envirocentre.ie to promote environmental awareness
in Irish industry. The new website was developed by
Enterprise Ireland (EI) in association with the Department
of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and is designed to
provide a one-stop shop for information on a range of
environmental issues for Irish industry, particularly the
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise (SME) sector.
The new website will assist Irish industry to become more

environmentally responsible by developing best practice
approaches to creating and maintaining an eco-efficient
business environment. It outlines what is required by
companies to fulfil their regulatory environmental
obligations, and demonstrates why improving
environmental practices can boost competitiveness and
enhance overall business performance. The site also
includes information on:
* support services available in the areas of climate

change, eco-design, environmental management systems,
and waste management
* advice on a range of technical issues, including

guidance on monitoring emissions and air quality, testing
for aquatic toxicity, treating biological effluent, and
controlling noise pollution
* details of when and how companies can benefit from

financial incentives
* downloadable guides on environmental legislation

and standards that companies are expected to comply
with
* news, case studies and articles on topics relating to
enhanced environmental performance, and
* diary dates for EIs regional environmental business
club meetings and events.
Exclusive to EI client companies (indigenous companies, in

Ireland and worldwide, with greater than 10 employees) is
the EI 4 Business initiative, which provides:
* assistance with environment-related issues in the

form of Best Practice Guidance documents
* e-mail question and answer facility, and
* on-site visits and/or a confidential eco-efficiency

reports.
EI anticipates that the website will overcome some of the

main barriers already discussed and bridge the
environmental information gap for Irish industry.
An important component of the website is the

Environmental Business Clubs, which are designed to
provide a forum for smaller companies to network with
larger enterprises and other smaller companies in similar
circumstances.
Coinciding with the official launch of the website, EI held a

free half-day environmental conference for Irish industry to
highlight the benefits of using the website to assist them
in meeting their environmental obligations. In addition, the
conference also detailed a range of EIs environmental
support services available to industry and it demonstrated
how improved environmental practices could enhance a
companys competitiveness.
Gerry Wrynn, Environment Unit, Dept. of Enterprise, Trade
& Employment, Kildare Street, Dublin 2.
tel: 01.631 2229 fax: 01.631 2823
e-mail: gerry_wrynn@entemp.ie
Eighth VSI Workcamp at NEEC
In June 2003, the National Environmental Education Centre
hosted the eighth Voluntary Services International (VSI)
workcamp in Knocksink Wood National Nature Reserve to
continue the valuable practical conservation work that has
so far been accomplished in this woodland reserve.
The workcamps are usually of two weeks duration and the

volunteers live in the education centre which is adapted to
be home from home for visiting workers.
The tasks that have so far been carried out by the VSI
teams have included:
* construction of wheelchair-friendly paths in the

woods and wildlife garden
* ponds for plants and insects.
* new woodland trails and
* removal of cherry laurel from fragile areas.
International workcamps have become an integral part of

the NEEC year, helping staff and students to complete
tasks that would be impossible without the help of the
volunteers and the assistance of Dchas and DIT.
NEEC and An Taisce Move Mountain (to ENFO)

The ongoing battle against litter can be something of an
uphill struggle at times. Events like An Taisces Annual
Spring clean where community groups of all sorts to get a
grip on litter in their area, help raise awareness of
Irelands litter problem. This year, to celebrate the great
work done by all the groups and individuals, the NEEC and
An Taisce made a mountain out of rubbish.
The 7 foot tall mountain was made from wood, plaster of

Paris and bags of rubbish collected in Knocksink Wood
National Nature Reserve.
The mountain was then moved to ENFO where it formed
the centrepiece of An Taisces Spring Clean Exhibition 24
March-04 April 2003. It is now on permanent display at
Knocksink. This construction also features interactive
recycling games, information slots and fascinating facts on
our real waste and litter mountains. Information Boards
are held at ENFO and they are available to L.A.s or
libraries for display.
Leaping into Action for a Better Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown

The NEEC and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council
are working together raising environmental awareness in
selected areas around Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown through
the Local Environmental Awareness Programme (LEAP).
The NEEC have teamed up with the Council to provide a
range of events in Dundrum, Ballyogan and Stillorgan.
These include:
* green homework club sessions
* tree-planting in local authority estates
* community litter-picks, and
* composting events in libraries and County Council

offices.
The NEEC team are also working with schools in these

areas, providing a range of services for different age-
groups. The NEEC and DunLaoghaire-Rathdown will
continue working together in Stillorgan and Shankhill over
the coming months. Residents and members of any club
or community groups who would like to get greener should
contact the NEEC or Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown at the
addresses below.
Billy Flynn, National Environmental Education Centre,
Knocksink Wood National Nature Reserve, Enniskerry,
Co. Wicklow.
tel: 01 286 6609 fax: 01 286 6610
e-mail: neec@eircom.net
or
Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Environment Office, County Hall,
Marine Road, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin.
tel: 01.205 4700 fax: 01.230 0125
e-mail: environ@dlrcoco.ie
website: www.dlrcoco.ie
2. water quality
Dublin Bay Project

On 13 March, 2003, Mr. Noel Ahern, T.D., Minister for
Housing and Urban Renewal announced the approval of
the Design Report for Contract 5 of the Dublin Bay Project.
The original Ringsend sewage treatment works and

associated sewer network were constructed in 1906 to
cater for a population of 320,000 approx. The continued
expansion of the city led to an ever increasing volume of
sewage which was dealt with by:
* enlarging the treatment works at Ringsend
* the construction of a sea outfall pipe which

discharged untreated sewage from the North Dublin
Drainage System off the nose of Howth into Dublin bay,
and
* dumping treated sludge (i.e. the solid waste left over

from the treatment process) into the sea about ten miles
offshore under a permit issued by the Department of
Communications, Marine & Natural Resources.
The EU Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD)

requires that all wastewater discharges above certain
thresholds must receive at a minimum, secondary
treatment by the 31st December 2005. Additionally, all
discharges of sewage sludge to surface waters were to
cease by 31st December 1998. To address the needs of a
modern capital city and to ensure compliance with the
UWWTD, the Dublin Bay project is designed to provide
wastewater treatment facilities for a population of
1.45million. The proposed treatment facilities include:
* preliminary treatment (to remove large particles of

suspended matter)
* storm sewage treatment (to cater for the additional

flows envisaged during storm periods)
* primary treatment (to remove grease, oils, fats and

smaller suspended particles)
* secondary treatment (to reduce the bacterial

element in the sewage and to aerate the water)
* tertiary treatment (to remove nitrogen/phosphorous

from the treated sewage)
* Ultra-violet treatment (to eliminate microbes in the

discharge), and
* sludge treatment and disposal facilities.
The elimination of primary treated sewage discharges in

the bay will result in the enhancement of the water
quality, and reduce the health risks to bathers by the
reduction of bacterial discharges. Other environmental
benefits are the expected reduction of algal growths,
which are fed by nutrients.
Construction of the Dublin Bay Wastewater Treatment

Scheme
The Dublin Bay Wastewater Treatment Scheme entailed
the construction of the following infrastructure:
* Contract 1 Interim Sludge Treatment Works. This

process converts the left-over bio-solid waste (sludge)
from the sewage plant into Bio-fert, an organic compound
used as a fertiliser by farmers, through a process of
thermal treatment. This contract has been completed and
brought to an end the dumping of sewage sludge at sea.
* Contract 2 Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant.
This contract provides for the construction of a modern
wastewater treatment plant in Ringsend. This contract
has been substantially completed.
* Contract 3 Sutton Pumping Station. This contract

provides for the construction of a large pumping station in
Sutton on the north side of Dublin Bay, which pumps the
sewage from the northern part of Dublin City and County
under Dublin Bay (through a submarine pipeline) to the
Ringsend Plant for treatment. This contract has been
completed.
* Contract 4 Submarine Pipeline. This unique

contract provided for the laying of a 11 km long pipeline
under Dublin Bay from the Sutton Pumping Station to the
Ringsend Treatment Plant. This contract has been
completed.
* Contract 5 Howth Sewers. Presently, untreated

sewage from the Howth and Sutton catchments is pumped
into the North Dublin Drainage System where it is diverted
into a tunnel that discharges off the nose of Howth. To
ensure compliance with the EU UWWTD, Contract 5 (Part 1
Howth & Sutton) will involve the upgrading of the sewer
network in the Howth and Sutton catchments. These
sewers will be connected to the Sutton Pumping Station,
from where the effluent will be pumped via the new
submarine pipeline under Dublin Bay to the Ringsend
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
This contract is in the initial stages of planning. When

completed, it will greatly benefit the Howth and Sutton
catchment areas through the upgrading of the sewer
network and the transfer of the raw effluent for treatment
at the Ringsend plant. The practice of discharging raw
effluent off the nose of Howth will cease, and it is
envisaged that incidences of localised pollution at the
local beaches and in Howth Harbour will be eliminated.
Fingal County Council has begun preparation of Contract
Documents for this element of the scheme.
* Contract 6 North Fringe Sewer. This contract

provides for the construction of a sewer network
stretching across the northern part of Dublin City from
Finglas to Sutton to collect sewage from the northern
fringes of Dublin City and pump it to the Sutton pumping
station. This contract will be substantially completed
shortly.
Mr. Battie White, Project Engineer, Dublin City Council, 68-
71 Marrowbone Lane, Dublin 8.
Tel: 01.672 2069 tel: 01.679 0809
e-mail: battie.white@dublincorp.ie
European Blue Flag Awards 2003

On 5 June, 2003, Mr. Martin Cullen, Minister for the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government, presented
the Blue Flag Awards 2003 to local authorities for 73
beaches and 6 marinas at a ceremony organised by An
Taisce The National Trust for Ireland, at Sea Point in Dun
Laoghaire, Dublin. The Minister noted that 97.7% of
coastal bathing areas comply with mandatory EU values
while 84.7% comply with the stricter aspirational guide
values. These results were slightly down on previous
years ongoing improvements.
The criteria for the award of Blue Flags, which are

determined by FEE, include:
* water quality
* facilities for visitors
* beach management (including litter control), and
* environmental information and display facilities.
The Minister highlighted that the Blue Flag awards were

particularly appropriate on 5 June, World Environment Day
which for this year has a special emphasis on freshwater
quality. He stated that the total investment in water and
wastewater infrastructure over the NDP period amounts to
E4.4 billion. Bathing areas and marinas that received a
Blue Flag in 2003 are listed in Appendix 3.
The Blue Flag scheme is operated by the Foundation for

Environmental Education (FEE), a non-Governmental
organisation.
Lisa Clifford, Water Quality Section
tel: 01.888 2468 fax: 01.888 2994
e-mail: lisa_clifford@environ.irlgov.ie
BirdWatch Ireland Water Seminar

On 11 June, 2003, BirdWatch Ireland hosted a seminar on
the role of wetlands and nature conservation in River
Basin Management Planning in the Shannon Catchment
area. The aim of the seminar was:
* to exchange expertise with decision makers and

stakeholders about integrated approaches to the
management of wetlands, and
* to motivate individuals to identify actions that can be

undertaken to enhance biodiversity through the Shannon
River Basin Management Plan.
The seminar was relevant to people and organisations

involved with other River Basin Districts. The seminar was
held in the Tullamore Court Hotel, Tullamore, County
Offaly.
The adoption of the Water Framework Directive (WFD)

means that the country will be divided into 5 River Basin
Districts and 2 crossborder River Basin Districts, which
will form the basis for future management. One such River
Basin District will incorporate the River Shannon and the
land drained by it. The WFD addresses issues of water
quality and aims at developing an integrated approach to
the management of rivers at the river basin district level.
This directive came into force on its publication in Official
Journal of European Communities (OJEC) in December
2000. but has to be transposed into Irish law by the end of
2003.
Speakers included Dr. Alan Barr from Kirk, McClure and

Morton Consultancy, who gave a presentation on the
River Shannon River Basin District Pilot Project, and
Dr. Ruth Davis from the Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds, who has worked extensively on the proposed EU
Wetlands Guidance Document that will be issued shortly
by the European Commission.
Christine Croton, BirdWatch Ireland, Midlands Office,
Crank House, Banagher, Co. Offaly.
tel: 0509.51676 fax: 0509.51951
e-mail: ccroton@birdwatchireland.org
Seiminer Uisce Luchtfaire an na hireann

Ar an 11 Meitheamh, 2003, bh seiminer ag LuchtFaire
an na hireann ar an rl at ag bogaigh agus ag
caomhn an dlra i bPleanil Bainistochta Imchuach
Abhantrach in abhantracht na Sionainne. Ba aidhm an
tseimineir n:
* Saineolas a mhalart leo sid a bhonn i mbun cinn

agus lucht leasa faoi chur chuige comhthite thaobh
bhainistocht bogach
* Daoine a spreagadh ionas go dtabharfaidh siad faoi

ghnomhaochta a chuirfeadh bithagslacht chun cinn tr
Phlean Bainistochta Imchuach Abhantracht na Sionainne.
Bh tbhacht leis an seiminer do dhaoine agus

deagraochta at pirteach i gCeantair Imchuacha
Abhantracht eile. Bh an seiminer ar sil in stn
Tullamore Court, Tulach Mhr, i gCo. Ubh Fhail.
De rir an Treoir Creatlach Uisce (WFD) roinnfear an tr i

gcig Cheantar Imchuach Abhantrachta agus 2 Cheantar
Inchuach Abhantrachta trasteorann, a bheidh mar bhuns
don bhainistocht amach anseo. Beidh ceann de na
Imchuacha Abhantrachta seo ar Abhainn na Sionainne
agus ar an talamh at scagadh aici. Breathnaonn an
WFD ar chaighden an uisce agus t s mar aidhm aige
cur chuige comhthite a chur chun cinn i mbainisti
aibhneacha ag leibhal ceantair imchuach abhantrachta.
Thinig an treoir seo i bhfeidhm nuair a foilsodh i
Nuachtn Oifigiil na gComhphobal Eorpaca (OJEC) i m na
Nollag 2000 ach caithfear dl na hireann a dhanamh de
faoi dheireadh 2003.
I measc na gcainteoir a bh i lthair bh an Dr. Alan Barr as

Comhairleoireacht Kirk, McClure agus Morton, agus thug
s liri ar Thionscnamh Polta Cheantar Imchuach
Abhantrachta na Sionainne agus bh an Dr. Ruth Davis i
lthair Chumann Roga Chaomhn na nan, a bhfuil
obair mhr danta aici ar Dhoicimad Treorach Bogaigh an
AE at beartaithe agus a eiseoidh Coimisin na hEorpa go
luath.
Tuilleadh Eolais:
Christine Croton, Lucht Faire an na hireann, Oifig Lr
Rigin, Crank House, Beannchar, Co. Ubh Fhail.
Teil: 0509 51676 Faics: 0509 51951
r-phost: ccroton@birdwatchireland.org
National Water Conservation Programme
On 9 May, 2003, Mr. Martin Cullen, T.D., Minister for the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government, announced
the allocation of over _276 million for the first round of a
new nation-wide water conservation programme. This new
investment builds on the 15 initial fact-finding water
conservation schemes carried out by selected local
authorities since 1996. The programme is designed to
identify and substantially reduce the levels of
unaccounted for water in Irelands water supply network.
The National Water Study (NWS) published by the

Department in 2000, estimated that up to 47% of all water
produced by the treatment plants in the study is
unaccounted for and that in some areas of the country the
level is much higher. Not all of this water is lost, a good
proportion is just not being properly metered and
recorded.
The results of the NWS and the Greater Dublin Water
Supply Strategy Study leave little room for doubt that a
very significant amount of water is lost into the ground
every day. This is an unsustainable and unacceptable
drain on the resources of local authorities, the State and
on the environment itself.
The earlier schemes offer very strong evidence that water

conservation, in addition to the environmental benefits, is
a practical, realistic and economic way of meeting much of
the extra demand for water. This has been clearly
demonstrated in Dublin where, since the mid-nineties, the
requirements of exceptional growth rates have been met,
with a combination of modest increases in supply and a
comprehensive leakage control campaign, without the
water shortages that were a feature of the early nineties.
Over E63 million has already been spent by local

authorities on the initial 15 schemes and on some network
rehabilitation work arising from those completed studies.
The new investment package provides for:
* E194 million to allow the 14 City and County Councils

that have already completed the study phase to carry out
the necessary major network rehabilitation, water
conservation and leakage reduction schemes identified in
the studies.
* E82.5 million to allow the remaining 17 City and

County Councils to commence studies to map out their
water supply networks and to establish the level and
sources of unaccounted for water.
As part of the study phase, authorities will also undertake

pilot water conservation and leakage reduction projects,
and identify measures to be incorporated into longer-term
strategies. The funding being made available is in addition
to that for new and upgraded water supply schemes in the
Water Services Investment Programme 2002 2004, and
reflects the full range of water conservation measures put
forward for approval by local authorities.
The funding for this new National Programme represents a

very significant investment. The Department expects
equally significant results. In terms of Active Leakage
Control, returns are instant and significant. Results from
the first 15 schemes from Phase 1 show that Unaccounted
For Water (UFW) rates have reduced significantly:
* in Dublin they reduced from 42.5% to 28.7%
* in Donegal from 59% to 39%
* in Meath from 47% to 34%, and
* in Kilkenny from 45% to 29%.
Similar reductions in UFW rates will be expected in each of

the local authorities now approved for Phase 1. One
immediate result of Water Management Systems, which
are an essential first step to proper long-term
management strategies, will be the identification of how
much UFW is due to leakage and how much is due to
metering deficiencies in the non-domestic sector, thereby
identifying new revenue sources for local authorities. In
terms of network rehabilitation, local authorities will be
required to submit an economic justification for each
proposed scheme. In addition, local authorities will be
allowed to use a portion of the new allocations for
information and awareness campaigns designed to
highlight what individual consumers can do to reduce
water usage and demand on water resources.
Jack Golden, Water Services Section, Department of the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Floor 2,
Block 1, Irish Life Centre, Dublin 1.
tel: 01.888 2106 fax: 01.888 2687
e-mail: jack_golden@environ.irlgov.ie
Dublin Region Water Conservation

Background
The development of the water resources for the Dublin
Region in accordance with the Greater Dublin Water
Supply Strategy Study developed in 1996, identified a
capital investment of _698 million (1996 figure) as being
the minimum necessary to provide drinking water needs
for the Dublin Region. Since its publication the Dublin
Region has experienced major growth. This was quantified
by the production of the Strategic Planning Guidelines that
predict continued major growth over the next decade with
a consequent extra demand for drinking water.
Consequently, the projections of the 1996 strategy study
in relation to growth were revised in the year 2000. The
development of the strategy for the Dublin Region centres
on five strategic action lines:
* Water Conservation
* Network Rehabilitation
* New Source Development
* Demand Management
* Capital Investment Programme
Water Conservation
The E47 million Dublin Region Water Conservation Project
has reduced leakage in the distribution network from
42.5% to 28%. This involved a the two-year construction
phase that finished in September 2000. It was followed by
a two-year maintenance phase to ensure the gains made
were sustained and a further reduction in leakage was
made by local authority staff during this phase.
The project identified that reduction in leakage below 28%

would require extensive replacement of the old cast iron
mains. These mains, some of which are over 100 years
old, are very susceptible to damage by ground movement
during frosty conditions. In total, 20 kilometres of water
main were rehabilitated and arrangements are now being
completed to start a procurement process for the
replacement of a large proportion of the cast iron mains,
particularly in the older developed areas.
Network Rehabilitation
Of the 7,200kms of water mains in the region, over
800kms are in immediate need of replacement. A
Regional Rehabilitation Project, commencing procurement
in 2003, is designed to replace a significant portion of
these mains over a 3-5 year period.
Mr. Martin Cullen announced an allocation of E276m for
the first round of a new nationwide conservation
programme in May 2003 of which E118m will be spent
replacing old water mains in the Dublin Region. Until such
time as the rehabilitation of the network is substantially
under way, the City will continue to have vulnerability in
winter periods, when frost action affects the network.
Progress has been made on a fast track project to boost
production in 2003 following approval from the DEHLG.
New Source Development

Plans have progressed for the procurement of an
advanced design/build contract at the largest water
production plant at Ballymore Eustace as follows:
* a target has been set to fast track this project for

completion before the end of 2004
* consultants have been appointed to make

recommendations on a series of short-term development
of new sources of drinking water in the Dublin Region
* in 2003 procurement will start for a consultant to

examine major sources of drinking water for Dublin. These
will included the River Shannon as well as other sources
identified in the year 2000 review of the 1996 Strategy,
and
* Kildare and Fingal are developing existing treatment

plants and bringing on stream new groundwater sources.
Demand Management
In order to complement the other strategic actions an
active strategy of Demand Management is necessary to
ensure that drinking water is not wasted. This includes
* new bye-laws for the conservation and management

of water are being finalised by Dublin City Council
following public consultation
* discussions with the DEHLG on how best to achieve

the objectives included in the Bye-Laws are under way,
and
* the intention is to develop bye-laws for other local

authorities based on feedback on the Dublin City Draft.
Capital Investment Programme

* a E550 million Capital Investment Programme is
being project managed to remedy infrastructure
deficiencies
* major advances have been made in advancing

schemes for new covered reservoirs at Vartry, Ballyboden
and Stillorgan, and
* contract documents are now with the DEHL for new
water mains serving the North City area and new
development zones in all seven local authorities.
Summary
The active delivery of the water investment strategy has
resulted in major improvements to the level of service
* despite phenomenal growth in the Region over the

last five years, water pressure reductions to over 150,000
customers at night time, no longer take place
* improvements in water pressure have also been

recorded throughout the Region
* over 7,000 new manufacturing jobs have been

created using the water saved in addition to jobs in the
services industries
* water quality is constantly monitored by the Central

Laboratory (4 Dublin authorities) and is subject to annual
audit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
* in the most recent published report the water quality

fully met the EU and National Quality standards and the
City was complimented on a proactive monitoring
programme.
Tom Leahy, Deputy City Engineer, Dublin City Council, 68-
71 Marrowbone Lane, Dublin 8.
tel: 01.672 2020 / 086-8150551
e-mail: tom.leahy@dublincity.ie
South Eastern River Basin Management Project
In April 2002, the South Eastern River Basin Management
Project (SERBMP) was initiated. This is the first national
River Basin Management Project to be established. These
initiatives are an integral part of EU Water Framework
Directive(WFD) (2000/60/EC) implementation in Ireland.
They are being led by local authorities and sponsored by
the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local
Government under the National Development Plan.
The overall objective is to develop, establish and during

the period of the project implement a River Basin District
Management System to protect and improve the quality of
waters. The rivers include the Suir, Nore, Barrow and
Slaney.
A key objective is the participation of all stakeholders.

Considering that the South Eastern River Basin
Development (SERBD) is nearly 13,000km2,, representing
20% of the land area in the Irish Republic, this is a
significant challenge. An EU Guidance document on the
implementation of Article 14 of the WFD on Public
Information and Consultation was published in December
2002. This emphasises the key role of public participation
and defines it as allowing people to influence the
outcome of plans and working processes. It is a means of
improving decision-making, creating awareness of
environmental issues, and helping to increase acceptance
and commitment towards intended plans.
Three forms of public participation are outlined including

Information Supply, Consultation and Active Involvement.
The first two are to be ensured and the latter should be
encouraged. The guidance recognises that there is no
blueprint for public participation and that it should be
organised and adapted to national, regional and local
circumstances.
The SERBMP has adopted the spirit of the WFD in

attempting to engage active involvement. The approach
taken in the SERBMP to-date has been as follows:
* a River Basin Management Group was assembled in

May 2001
* in August 2002, the project sought expressions of

interest from those who wished to participate in the River
Basin Management process, and
* a Public Participation Seminar was held in Kilkenny on

5th November 2002 with presentations from the
Department of Environment, Heritage and Local
Government, the Environmental NGO VOICE and the
SERBMP team
The project proposed the formation of an SERBMP Interest

Group Alliance and the establishment of a Consultation
Forum with the SERBD Interest Group Alliance.
Three temporary representatives of SERBMP Interest

Group Alliance attended the River Basin Management
Group on 20 November 2002. A follow-up meeting of
interest groups/NGOs was held on 19 February 2003 in
Kilkenny. The purpose was to enable all Interest Groups to
discuss the process of public participation in the SERBMP
and to respond to the proposal for
participation put forward by the project. A facilitated
workshop was held in May 2003. The process of public
participation in the SERBMP is well ahead of the December
2006 deadline. River Basin Management Plans are
required by 2009.
Colin Byrne (Project Co-ordinator)
cbyrne@serbd.com
http://www.serbd.com
Eastern River Basin Management Project

On 19 April, 2003, Mr. Martin Cullen, T.D., Minister for the
his formal approval for a project for the development of a
River Basin Management System for the Eastern River
Basin. The project costing an estimated E7.8 million, will
be funded 100% by the Department of the Environment,
Heritage and Local Government and will be led by Dublin
City Council on behalf of the 12 participating local
authorities.
This project involves a comprehensive approach to water

management and will also include participation by other
agencies and interests in relation to agriculture, fisheries,
flood management, habitat protection and tourism. The
Eastern Region covering a land area of some 6,263 square
kilometres accommodates a population of approximately
1.25 million people, including major urban centers. The
Project will make a significant contribution towards
implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive
(WFD) (2000/60/EC). This integrated management project
for the Eastern Region includes major river systems in
counties Cavan, Dublin, Kildare, Louth, Meath, Offaly,
Westmeath and Wicklow. The objective is to:
* establish an integrated water quality monitoring and
management system in relation to the whole Eastern River
Basin from source to sea, including the related coastal
waters and groundwater, and
* provide the bulk of the baseline information required

for the development of a comprehensive River Basin
Management Plan for the area.
The project will
* identify all significant impacts on water quality and

quantity
* set quality objectives, and

* identify and put in place the necessary monitoring
and management measure to achieve those objectives.
State of the art computer based GIS systems will identify

and collate all human activities that impact on waters in
the region. Quality objectives will be set and the
necessary monitoring and management measures will be
put in place to achieve those objectives.
The development of a single integrated river basin
management system for the Eastern River Basin District
will incorporate and further expand existing works
undertaken as part of the Three Rivers Project. The Final
Report of the Three Rivers Project was published on 29
November 2002 (see Environment Bulletin No. 55).
Andy Bogie, Water Quality Section.
tel: 01.888 2317 fax: 01.888 2994
e-mail andrew_bogie@environ.irlgov.ie
Water Framework Directive
Mr. Martin Cullen, T.D., Minister for the Environment,
Heritage and Local Government, announced the launch of
the website www.wfdireland.ie on 19 April 2003. The
purpose of the website is to provide information to all
interested parties about implementation of the EU Water
Framework Directive (2000/60/EEC) (WFD) in Ireland.
The aims and objectives of the Directive are clearly

spelled out with maps and diagrams and basic
information. The website contains links to other websites
and also has an e-mail facility where individuals can
request more specific information. Material on the website
will be updated to reflect developments in implementation
of the Directive.
In order to facilitate widespread coverage and access to

the information on this website, all interested
organisations, who have their own website, are
encouraged to include links to www.wfdireland.ie.
Water Framework Directive Public

Consultation Papers
In March, 2003, two public consultation papers on the
implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive
(2000/60/EC) (WFD) were published. The papers are:
* Managing Our Shared Waters A Joint North/South

Consultation Paper on International River Basin Districts
and Administrative Arrangements for Implementation of
the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), and
* Seeking Your Views on Water Quality Heritage

Council Consultative Document.
Managing Our Shared Waters
Managing Our Shared Waters is a joint North/South
Consultation Paper, issued by the Department of the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG) in
the South and the Department of the Environment (DOE)
in the North. The paper identifies the three international
river basin districts proposed by DEHLG and DOE and
invites the views of all stakeholders on how best to protect
and conserve these shared river catchments. The paper
has been sent to a wide range of interested parties
including: agriculture, commercial, industrial, recreational
and community interests, environmental organisations
and individual citizens. The full text of this paper is
available on the website www.wfdireland.ie. The closing
date for responses was 30 May 2003.
Requests for hard copies or electronic versions should be

sent to: Andy Bogie, Water Quality Section, Department of
the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Custom
House, Dublin 1. tel: 01.888 2317
fax: 01.888 2994 e-mail andrew_bogie@environ.irlgov.ie
Water Management Consultation Paper

The Heritage Council is a statutory body, under the aegis
of the DEHLG, with responsibility for proposing policies
that will protect, preserve and enhance Irelands heritage,
whether built, cultural or natural. Water is one of the most
important of those resources and is part of Irelands natural
and cultural heritage. The Heritage Council is currently
drafting a policy on water management issues and the
implementation of the WFD. As part of this process the
Council published the above mentioned consultation
paper, the objective of which is to gather views on the
following issues:
* the current state of Irish waters
* the principles underlying the WFD, and
* practical implementation of the WFD
* what else needs to be done.
The closing date for responses was 1 June, 2003. The full
text of this paper is also available on the at website
www.heritagecouncil.ie. Queries and requests for hard
copies should be addressed to: Dr Beatrice Kelly, The
Heritage Council, Rothe House, Kilkenny, tel: 056.70777,
e-mail: bkelly@heritagecouncil.com
Andy Bogie, Water Quality Section
tel: 01.888 2317 fax: 01.888 2994
e-mail: andrew_bogie@environ.irlgov.ie
New Nitrates Regulations

On 29 May 2003, the Minister for the Environment,
Heritage and Local Government, Mr. Martin Cullen T.D.,
made the European Communities (Protection of Waters
Against Pollution from Agricultural Sources) Regulations,
2003 (S.I. No. 213 of 2003).
These Regulations identify the whole territory of Ireland as

the area for which an action programme will be developed
and applied for the purposes of the Nitrates Directive.
Detailed provisions of an action programme will be
developed over the coming months in consultation with
the main farming organisations and other interested
parties.
The action programme will provide for a range of

measures (including regulations) to strengthen the
application of established "good housekeeping" rules for
farming in all areas. It will consist primarily of measures to
provide better protection for the environment at farm level
and to monitor the effect of these measures on farming
practices and water quality. This approach aims to secure
better protection for the environment by the application of
good agricultural practice on a more consistent basis.
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg and the

Netherlands have also adopted a whole territory approach
to the Nitrates Directive.
Lisa Clifford, Water Quality Section,
tel: 01.888 2648 fax: 01.888 2994
e-mail: lisa_clifford@environ.ie
3. air quality, energy & nuclear safety matters
Review of Implementation of the National Climate Change

Strategy
The Governments approved National Climate Change
Strategy is subject to a biennial review to monitor
performance on implementation and effectiveness of the
wide range of policies and measures identified in the
Strategy and to assess whether additional action is
necessary to meet Irelands Kyoto target by the
commitment period 2008-2012. The Minister for the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Mr. Martin
Cullen, T.D., recently initiated the first review of
implementation of the strategy and work is currently
underway by the cross-Departmental Climate Change
Team in consultation with Comhar, the National
Sustainable Development Partnership.
The review will update and strengthen the Strategy by

ensuring all necessary policies are put into place, and their
implementation is pursued vigorously across all sectors.
The priority is to refocus and intensify necessary action
and to overcome any barriers identified to secure early
implementation of the policies and measures in the
Strategy to ensure our Kyoto target is met. The review is
expected to be published during 2003.
Anne Pender, Air/Climate Section, Department of the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Custom
House, Dublin 1.
tel: 01.888 2787 fax: 01.888 2014
e-mail: anne_pender@environ.irlgov.ie.
Coal Ban Extended to Four New Areas

On 25 March, 2003, Mr. Martin Cullen, T.D., Minister for the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government signed
regulations extending the ban on the marketing, sale and
distribution of bituminous coal to Bray, Kilkenny, Sligo and
Tralee. The ban will come into effect in these areas on 1
October, 2003.
The extension of the ban to the four areas is in accordance

with the negotiated agreement signed by the Department
and the Solid Fuel Trade Group (representing the principal
importers and distributors of solid fuel) in June 2002
following consultations on a potential national ban on
bituminous coal and petcoke in 2001/2002.
The ban on the sale of bituminous coal already operates in

twelve urban areas; Dublin (since 1990), Cork (1995),
Arklow, Drogheda, Dundalk, Limerick, Wexford (1998), and
Celbridge, Galway, Leixlip, Naas and Waterford (2000).
The ban has proven highly successful and all areas have
shown considerable improvement in terms of recorded
smoke levels since being introduced. Independent medical
research has shown that the ban has resulted in some 116
fewer respiratory deaths and 243 fewer cardiovascular
deaths per year in Dublin alone.
The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs

will make an additional payment during the winter heating
season to qualifying social welfare recipients to assist
lower income households with any increased cost of
smokeless solid fuel.
The Department will issue a public information leaflet to

all households and businesses in the new ban areas before
October explaining the effects and implications of the ban.
Noel Sheahan, Air/Climate Section.
tel: 01.888 2472 fax: 01.888 2014
e-mail: noel_sheahan@environ.irlgov.ie
Alternative Energy Requirement Programme

The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural
Resources has announced the Alternative Energy
Requirement (AER) VI under EU Procurement rules. The
competition aims at ensuring that the 500 Megawatt (MW)
target established in the 1999 Green Paper on Sustainable
Energy is reached by 2005.
AER VI aims at:
* supporting the overall 500 MW target delivered by

projects under AER V and VI
* supporting 2 offshore wind energy stations, and
* supporting CHP plants using biomass rather than

natural gas which is the typical fuel.
Prospective applicants were invited to submit bid prices in

the various technology categories (excluding offshore
where an indicative price has been set) supported in AER
VI, up to or at the published cap prices at which they are
willing to sell electricity to the ESB. Details of the price cap
in each category were published in the terms and
conditions for the competition and are available on the
website www.dcmnr.gov.ie/energy. The categories include
wind, landfill gas, small-scale hydro power plants,
anaerobic digestion plants and biomass steam cycle CHP.
In a major new initiative 50 MWs are on offer for the first

time in an offshore category. In this category an indicative
price only has been set to allow developers to bid above
or below that price, but no legitimate expectation is
created that any price above the indicative price will be
accepted.
A total of 167 applications were received by the closing

date of 24 April, 2003. Winners in the AER Programme will
be offered guaranteed demand contracts which will oblige
the ESB to purchase all the output from selected new
renewable energy based electricity generation stations for
up to fifteen years at each applicants bid price
The new capacity on offer will prevent the emission of

over 2 million tonnes of polluting greenhouse gases
annually, cutting emissions by one-fifth of our obligations
under the Kyoto agreement, and will:
* reduce Ireland's dependency on imported fossil fuels

by more than 4 million barrels of oil (7 oil tanker shiploads)
every year or 60 million barrels of oil (100 oil tanker
shiploads) over 15 years (the lifetime of the renewable
energy equipment)
* improve Ireland's national trade balance by _110

million annually by redirecting money previously spent on
energy imports back into the local Irish economy. This is
worth around _2 billion to the Irish economy over 15 years
(the lifetime of the contracts), and
* create 350 new secure long-term jobs in renewable

energy equipment operation and maintenance, and 1,600
full time construction jobs over the two-year building
phase.
Mr Michael Purcell, Renewable Energy Division,
Department of Communications, Marine and Natural
Resources, Setanta Centre, Nassau Street, Dublin 2.
tel: 01.604 1682 fax: 01.604 1274
e-mail: michaelj.purcell@dcmnr.ie
Air Quality Monitoring Annual Report 2001

The Environmental Protection Agency has published its
sixth air quality monitoring annual report. The report gives
data on the levels of the main pollutants monitored in
Ireland during 2001, including sulphur dioxide, particulate
matter, nitrogen oxides, ozone, lead, carbon monoxide
and benzene.
The report assesses air quality data in relation to existing

air quality standards and future standards which will apply
from 2005 and 2010 as set out in the Air Quality
Standards Regulations 2002 (see Environment Bulletin No.
53). Most of the air quality data were obtained from local
authority monitoring stations, supplemented by data
collected by the EPA at its own fixed monitoring sites and
by monitoring carried out by Mobile Units deployed in
various urban centres throughout the country. Data from
other sources is also included where appropriate.
Overall the report shows that air quality was generally

good throughout the country although future limit values
for NOx and particulate matter will be challenging to meet,
particularly in heavily trafficked urban areas.
The full report can be viewed on the Agencys website:

www.epa.ie or may be obtained from the EPA Publications
Office, Richview, Clonskeagh Road, Dublin 14 (tel. 01.268
0100).
Noel Sheahan, Air/Climate Section.
tel: 01.888 2472 fax: 01.888 2014
e-mail: noel_sheahan@environ.irlgov.ie
SEI Solar Conference and Study Tour

On 19-20 June 2003, Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI)
hosted a two-day Solar Conference and Study Tour at the
Botanic Gardens, Dublin. Leading European experts and
Irish practitioners shared their experience and know-how
and familiarized delegates with the very latest in all solar
technologies. Delegates will had a unique opportunity to:
* assess the status and potential of solar energy in

Ireland
* discover how solar architecture is delivering
sustainable, comfortable, cost effective, healthy living and
working conditions
* see solar energy in action first hand, and
* learn more about the practical solutions for the

implementation of solar energy.
In its promotional material for the conference, SEI

confirmed that solar energy can provide cost-effective
solutions to fight climate change and reduce our
dependency on expensive and polluting fossil fuels.
Contrary to what many people may think solar energy in
Ireland is not a myth, and we are not short of solar energy
resources. In Ireland every year we receive from the sun
the equivalent of 600 times the total amount of energy we
consume. At current energy prices the average Irish family
will spend over _40,000 in the next 30 years just to heat
their home. Harnessing solar energy can reduce those
costs by over 50%. This very intense source of free, eco-
friendly energy will always be available and it is carbon
dioxide free. Among the range of measures that can be
implemented are:
* passive solar design (PSD), an architectural approach

to maximise natural solar gains, reduces heat losses and
provides natural ventilation and day lighting
* the use of sustainable construction materials when

designing and constructing a building
* the installation of active solar thermal systems that

use solar collectors to transform sunlight into heat and
which can be used for space heating or more commonly to
produce hot water. Solar water heaters are ideal for new
houses or extensive renovations as their installation can
be integrated in the overall building work
* geothermal heat pumps, which is a complimentary

technology to solar, where a renewable heat pump
harnesses heat from the ground, water and the air, all of
which are freely available in large quantities and contain
heat at a low temperature, and
* ground/water source heat pumps are one of the most

efficient ways to heat space, sanitary hot water and
eventually provide cooling.
Last year over 300 ground or water source heat pumps

were installed in Ireland and this number is set to more
than double this year as more and more people and
businesses look to the sun for eco-friendly and affordable
energy. When properly designed and integrated, heat
pump systems can yield a simple payback period of five
years and sometimes less compared to conventional
systems.
Sustainable Energy Ireland, Renewable Energy Information
Office, Shinagh House, Bandon, Co Cork.
tel: 023.42193. fax: 023.29154
e-mail: renewables@reio.ie website: www.sei.ie
European Car Free Day 2003

On 17 April, 2003 Mr. Martin Cullen T.D., Minister for the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government wrote to all
local authorities to notify them that Ireland will again
participate in European Car Free Day on 22 September this
year and to elicit support for the event in which Ireland
has participated since 2000.
The purpose of the event is to promote sustainable

approaches to transport, highlight the adverse effects of
cars on the urban environment in terms of air and noise
pollution, encourage the use of public transport and
alternative modes of transport, and enable citizens to
rediscover for a day their city or town. Ten local authorities
organised events in 2002.
The event has proven very successful as an awareness

raising measure and market research carried out in 2002
on behalf of Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI) indicated
that 82% of respondents wished to see the event
repeated.
The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local

Government, SEI and the Department of Transport will
again be part-funding local authority participation in this
years event, with up to 40% of eligible costs available. SEI
sent funding application forms to all local authorities on 14
May. The following 19 cities and towns will participate.
Athlone, Balbriggan, Clonakilty, Cork, Drogheda, Dublin,
Galway, Greystones, Killarney, Kilkenny, Listowel,
Limerick, Newcastlewest, Monaghan, Sligo, Tralee,
Waterford, Westport and Wicklow.
As this years event falls on a Monday, the focus of events

is expected to be on commuter and worker mobility rather
than the more family themed events of the last two years.
John McDermott, Air/Climate Section.
tel: 01.888 2373 fax: 01.888 2014
e-mail: john_mcdermott@environ.ie
L Saor Charranna na hEorpa 2003
Ar an 17 Aibren, 2003 scrobh Martin Cullen TD, an tAire
Comhshaoil, Oidreachta agus Rialtas itiil chuig gach
dars itiil chun a chur in il dibh go nglacfaidh ire
pirt ars i L Saor Charranna an 22 Men Fmhair i
mbliana agus freisin chun tacaocht a fhil don imeacht
seo a bhfuil ire pirteach inti 2000.
Is an aidhm at leis an imeacht n chun cur chuige

inmharthanach a chur chun cinn thaobh crsa iompair,
agus aird a dhri ar an droch-ifeacht at ag carranna ar
an timpeallacht uirbeach thaobh aeir agus truailli de
dheasca torainn, agus chomh maith leis sin daoine a
spreagadh chun cras iompair phoibl a sid agus
modhanna eile iompair, agus an deis a thabhairt do
shaothrnaigh sult a bhaint as a gcathair n as a mbaile
mr ar feadh l amhin. Deagraigh deich n-dars itiil
imeachta i 2002.
Dirigh go maith leis an imeacht sa mid is gur chuir s

daoine ar an airdeall agus lirigh taighde margaidh a
rinneadh i 2002 thar ceann Fhuinneamh Inmharthanach
na hireann (SEI) gur mhaith le 82% dibh sid a ceistodh
go n-eagrfa an imeacht ars.
Beidh an Roinn Comhshaoil, Oidreachta agus Rialtas

itiil, an SEI agus an Roinn Iompair ag danamh
cmhaoini ar na hdaris itila a ghlacfaidh pirt in
imeachta na bliana seo, agus suas go dt 40% de chostais
inghlactha ar fil. Sheol an SEI foirmeacha iarratais
maoinithe chuig na hdaris itila ar fad i m na
Bealtaine. Glacfaidh na 19 bailte seo a leanas pirt san
imeacht: Baile tha Luain, Baile Brign, Na Cloich na
Coillte, Corcaigh, Droichead tha, Baile tha Cliath,
Gaillimh, Na Clocha Liatha, Cill Airne, Cill Chainnigh, Lios
Tuathail, Luimneach, Caislen Nua Thair, Muineachn,
Sligeach, Tr Li, Port Lirge, Cathair na Mart agus Cill
Mhantin.
De bhr go bhfuil imeacht na bliana seo ar an Luan, beidh

na himeachta ag dri ar romhair agus ar an oibr i
gcomparid le himeachta le dh bhliain anuas a dhrigh
nos m ar an teaghlach.
Tuilleadh Eolais:
John mcDermott, Roinn Aer/Aerid
teil: 01 888 2473 Faics: 01 888 2014
r-phost: john_mcdermott@environ.ie
4. Planning
Tidy Towns Competition 2003

On 25 March, 2003, Mr. Pat the Cope Gallagher, T.D.,
Minister of State at the Department of the Environment,
Heritage and Local Government, launched the Tidy Towns
Competition 2003. Over 700 entrants are expected to
compete for the prestigious national title of Irelands
Tidiest Town. The competition will conclude with an award-
giving ceremony scheduled for Dublin Castle in early
September.
This year, the prize fund was increased to E142,000 with

the National Prize now standing at E15,000. The Royal
Institute of the Architects in Ireland will award a prize for a
new building which, in the judges opinion, uses the best
contemporary techniques and design. Repak are the new
sponsors of the Tidy Towns Regional Awards.
Other events in relation to the competition include:
* Irelands Best Kept Town competition with entrants

from both Northern and Southern Ireland participating.
Adjudication took place in May and the winners were
announced at a prize giving ceremony on 1 July, 2003, in
Dublin Castle
* Ireland will be represented by Malahide, Co. Dublin

and Keadue, Co. Roscommon in the European Entente
Florale Competition 2003, and
* on 27 April, 2003, Mary McAleese, President of

Ireland, unveiled a plaque to mark the success of
Castletown, Co. Laois as National Winners of the Tidy
Towns Competition for 2002.
The new Tidy Towns web-site may be accessed at

www.tidytowns.ie
Ger Norton, Tidy Towns Unit.
tel: 01.888 2300 fax: 01.888 2286
e-mail: geraldine_norton@environ.irlgov.ie
City Neighbourhoods Competition 2003

On 28 May, 2003, Mr. Pat the Cope Gallagher, T.D.,
Minister of State at the Department of the Environment,
Heritage and Local Government launched City
Neighbourhoods, a new competition for residential and
commercial districts in the 5 major cities of Cork, Dublin,
Galway, Limerick and Waterford. This is a new
competition which aims at replacing the tremendous
success of Tidy Towns in a city context by mobilising the
same community effort in partnership with business
interests, local authorities and state bodies with the
overriding objective of making our cities more attractive
places to live, work or visit.
The competition is organised by the Tidy Towns Unit of the

Department and is being run on a pilot basis for the first
two years, in conjunction with the local "Tidy District" and
"Tidy Street" competitions currently organised by the five
city councils. The highest achievers in those competitions
will be invited to take part in City Neighbourhoods and will
compete for the titles of:
* Best Residential Area
* Best Urban Village, and
* Best City Street
One overall winner will be awarded the title City

Neighbourhood of the Year.
In addition there will be a number of special awards for:
* Best Shopfront
* Best Landscaped Open Space
* Best Retail Building/Supermarket
* Best Old Building
* Best Modern Building
* Best Civic Building
* Best Local Park
* Most Attractive Pedestrianised Area and
* Best Bilingual Neighbourhood

To get the competition up and running, city councils are
being asked to nominate the areas they want to put
forward to compete in City Neighbourhoods.
This competition forms a key part in delivering the

Governments Litter Action Plan the national anti-litter
strategy which recognises that the local partnership
approach based on concerted action at local level is
regarded as the optimum model for tackling litter
pollution, especially in urban areas, where the problem is
most acute. It calls on all local authorities to develop these
arrangements with local communities, business and
commercial sectors to promote public awareness and
participation in local clean up and awareness actions to
improve the local environment. City Neighbourhoods, with
its focus on community involvement, will be a major
contributor to implementing this strategy.
The competition will also support the participation of the

city councils in the 2003 Irish Business Against Litter
(IBAL) National Litter League, a national anti-litter
initiative co-funded by IBAL and the Department. Co-
operation between the various sectors at local level is also
essential for a successful performance in the League. It is
expected that in time, City Neighbourhoods should
become an integral part of the city councils anti-litter
strategies.
Full assessment criteria are detailed in a booklet entitled,

City Neighbourhoods Competition which is available from
the Tidy Towns Unit Department of the Environment,
Heritage and Local Government, Custom House Dublin 1,
or from the 5 city councils.
Dave McLoughlin, Tidy Towns Section.
tel: Lo call 1890 20 20 21
website: www.tidytowns.ie and your City Council.
Comrtas Comharsanachta Cathrach 2003

Ar an 28 Bealtaine 2003, sheol an tUasal Pat the Cope
Gallchir, T.D, an tAire Stit sa Roinn Comhshaoil,
Oidhreachta agus Rialtais itiil, comrtas nua do
cheantair cnaitheacha agus do cheantair trchtla sna
chig chathair mhr Corcaigh, Baile tha Cliath, Gaillimh,
Luimneach agus Port Lirge. Is comrtas nua seo a
dhronn ar theacht in it Chomrtas na mBailte
Slachtmhara i gcomhthacs cathrach tr iarracht pobail
comhphirtocht lucht gn, le hdaris itila agus le
comhlachta stit agus an phromhaidhm a bheith leis n
iteanna nos deise a dhanamh dr gcathracha mar
iteaanna chnaithe, mar iteanna oibre agus mar
iteanna chun cuairt a thabhairt orthu a chur i bhfeidhm.
Is Aonad na mBailte Slachtmhara den Roinn Comhshaoil

a eagraonn an comrtas agus t s reachtil ar bhun
polta le dh bhliain anuas, i gcomhair leis an gCeantar
Slachtmhar itiil agus na comrtais Srid Slachtmhar
at n-eagr faoi lthair ag na cig chomhairle cathrach.
Beidh deis ag na daoine is fearr a n-ironn leo sna
comrtais sin pirt a ghlacadh i gcomrtas
Comharsanachta Cathrach agus beidh siad in iomaocht do
na teidil:
* An Ceantar Cnaitheach is fearr
* An Baile Beag Uirbeach is fearr agus
* An tSrid Cathrach is fearr
Agus bronnfar teideal Comharsanacht Cathrach na Bliana

ar an mbuaiteoir.
Chomh maith leis sin beidh gradaim speisialta don:
* adan siopa is fearr
* Sps Oscailte Trdhreacha is fearr
* Ollmhargadh/Foirgneamh Miondola is fearr
* Sean-Fhoirgneamh is fearr
* Foirgneamh Nua-aimseartha is fearr
* Foirgneamh Cathrach is fearr

* Pirc itiil is fearr
* Ceantar Coisithe is tarraingt agus
* Comharsanacht Dhtheangach is fearr
T s iarrtha ar Chomhairl Cathrach na ceantair at siad

ag iarraidh a chur ar aghaidh don Chomharsanacht
Cathrach a ainmni ionas go mbeifear in ann ts a chur
leis an gcomrtas.
T pirt lrnach ag an gcomrtas seo i seachadadh Plean

Gnomhaochta Bruscair an Rialtais an straitis
frithbhruscair nisinta a aithnonn gurb an cur chuige
comhphirtochta itiil bunaithe ar ghnomhaocht
chomhbheartaithe ag an leibhal itiil an modh is fearr le
tabhairt faoi thruailli bruscair, go hirithe i gceantair
uirbeacha, it a bhfuil an fhadhb nos tromchis. Iarrtar ar
gach dars itiil na socruithe seo a fhorbairt le pobail
itila, le ranna gn agus le ranna trchtla ionas go
ndreofar aird phoibl ar an it a ghlanadh suas agus go
nglacfaidh daoine pirt sa ghlanadh suas go hitiil agus
freisin chun gnomhaochta eolais a chur ar bun chun
feabhas a chur ar an timpeallacht itiil. Mar sin cuideoidh
Comrtas Comharsanacht Cathrach, leis an bhfcas at ag
an gcomrtas ar phirtocht pobail, le cur chun tosaigh na
straitise seo.
Tabharfaidh an comrtas tacaocht chomh maith do

rannphirtocht na gComhairl Cathrach i Lig Bruscair
Nisinta 2003, tionscnamh in aghaidh an bhruscair at
chmhaoini ag IBAL agus ag an Roinn Comhshaoil. T s
riachtanach chomh maith go mbeadh comhoibri idir na
ranna agsla ag an leibhal itiil ionas go n-ireoidh le
hobair na Lige. Tthar ag sil, amach anseo, go mbeidh
comrtas Comharsanachta Cathrach mar chuid
riachtanach den straitis at ag Comhairl Cathrach in
aghaidh an bhruscair.
T critir measnaithe iomlna sonraithe i leabhrn dr

teideal, City Neighbourhoods Competition at ar fil
Aonad na mBailte Slachtmhara sa Roinn Comhshaoil,
Oidhreachta agus Rialtais itiil, Teach an Chustaim, Baile
tha Cliath 1, n na cig chomhairle cathrach.
Tuilleadh Eolais:
Dave McLoughlin, Roinn na mBailte Slachtmhara
Teil: Uimhir Glaoch itiil 1890 20 20 21
Lithren Grasin: www.tidytowns.ie
Agus do Chomhairle Catharach.
Urban and Village Renewal

On 5 May 2003, Mr Martin Cullen, T.D., Minister for the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government announced
allocations for the Urban and Village Renewal Measures of
the two Regional Operational Programmes under the
National Development Plan. The aim of these measures is
to provide financial support for a range of interventions to
upgrade cities, towns and villages to make them more
attractive places in which to live and work and encourage
social and economic development.
The main features of the package include:
* E6.5m for major urban regeneration in the five major

cities
* E throughout the country
* E1.1m for architectural conservation of public

buildings
* E2.9m for protected structures, and
* E200,000 for the Dublin Docklands Development.
Details of the allocations are listed at Appendix 4. EU and

Exchequer funding of E8m was also made available to the
six border counties under the Peace II Programme. This
funding aims to assist communities in the border region
who have been adversely affected during the conflict in
the North by encouraging and supporting locally based
social, economic and cultural activity. The Special EU
Programmes Body (SEUPB), which was set up under the
Belfast/Good Friday Agreement is the Managing Authority
for this programme. The programme is made available to
the six county council led-task forces in these counties to
carry out works that focus on community regeneration.
Details of the allocations are attached at appendix 4.
Matt McLoughlin, Urban and Village Development.
tel: 01.888 2505 fax: 01.888 2286
e-mail: matthew_mcloughlin@environ.irlgov.ie
5. Natural Heritage
National Tree Week 2003

On 2 March, 2003, An Taoiseach, Mr Bertie Ahern, T.D.,
launched National Tree Week which ran from 2-8 March. It
is organised by the Tree Council of Ireland and jointly
sponsored by Coillte and SPAR.
The aim of National Tree Week is to raise awareness about

trees and encourage local communities and local
authorities to participate in over 300 events around the
country during the week.
This years theme was clean air - grow your share and it
reflects the growing concern about global warming which
is caused by the build up of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
atmosphere. This build up is contributing to climate
change. Planting more trees and forests is one of a
number of options to lower CO2 emissions.
Trees also play an essential role in providing habitats for

thousands of plants and animals and stabilising soil. They
are a major contributor to our economy with the forestry
industry now worth over _450m and providing jobs for
over 16,000 people, mainly in rural Ireland.
Ireland remains one of the least wooded countries in

Europe with only 9% of our land planted with trees
compared to the European average of 33%. Ireland has
agreed a target to increase our forest cover to 17% by
2035.
Events organised for National Tree Week included forest

walks, talks, tree planting
ceremonies and exhibitions. In addition, over 15,000 trees,

supplied by Coillte, were distributed to schools and
community groups by every local authority in the country.
A poster competition was held among the third level art

colleges based on the theme clean air-grow your share.
The winning poster was unveiled by Derek Mooney, RTE at
the ENFO offices and an exhibition of some of the other
entries was held at ENFO during March.
The Tree Council of Ireland is a voluntary organisation

formed to promote the planting, care and conservation of
trees. It represents almost 50 professional, voluntary and
public service bodies that share a common interest in
trees.
Dr. Marian Coll, Director, Tree Council of Ireland, The Park,
Cabinteely, Dublin 18.
Tel: 01.284 9211 fax: 01.284 9197
e-mail: trees@treecouncil.ie
website: www.treecouncil.ie
Seachtain Nisinta na gCrann 2003

Ar an 2 Mrta 2003 sheol an Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, T.D.,
Seachtain Nisinta na gCrann a bh ar sil n 2-8 Mrta.
Is iad Comhairle Crann na hireann a eagraonn agus
faigheann s comhurraocht Coillte agus SPAR.
Is an aidhm at le Seachtain Nisinta na gCrann n

eolas a fhil faoi chrainn agus chun pobail itila agus
daris itila a spreagadh chun pirt a ghlacadh in os
cionn 300 imeacht ar fud na tre ar feadh na seachtaine.
Ba tama na bliana seo n aer r cuir do chuidse ag
fs agus lironn s an imn at ag dul i mid maidir le
tamh domhanda a tharlaonn de bharr tuilleadh dh-
ocsad charbin (CO2) at sinnithe san atmaisfar. T an
neart sin ag cur le hathr aeride. Ceann de na beala a
laghdatear astuithe CO2 n tr breis crann agus foraois a
chur.
T rl riachtanach ag crainn chomh maith sa mid is go

gcuireann siad gnthga ar fil do na mlte planda agus do
na mlte ainmh agus dithir at chobhs. Cuireann siad
go leor airgid san eacnamaocht: is fi os cionn 450 millin
euro tionscail na foraoiseachta agus cuireann s postanna
ar fil do os cionn 16, 000 duine, an chuid is m acu faoin
tuath in irinn.
T ire ar cheann de na tortha is l at faoi fhoraois san

Eoraip agus gan ach 9% dr gcuid taln curtha i
gcomparid leis an men Eorpach ag 33%. T sprioc
leagtha sos ag irinn go madfar an mid taln at faoi
fhoraois go 17% faoin mbliain 2035.
I measc na n-imeachta at eagraithe do Sheachtain na

gCrann t silid foraoise, cainteanna, searmanais cur
chrainn agus taispentais. Chomh maith leis sin, chuir
gach dars itiil sa tr os cionn 15,000 crann, a bh
curtha ar fil ag Coillte, amach chuig scoileanna agus
chuig grpa pobail.
Bh comrtas pstaeir ar sil idir na colist tr leibhal

ealane bunaithe ar an tama aer r cuir do chuidse ag
fs. Is Dereck Mooney as RT a nochtaigh an pstaer a
raibh an bua aige ag oifig ENFO agus bh taispentas de
chuid de na hiontrlacha eile ar crochadh ag ENFO le linn
mh Mhrta.
Is cumann deonach Comhairle Crann na hireann a

bunaodh chun plandil crann, aire agus caomhn crann a
chur chun tosaigh. Danann s ionadaocht ar bheagnach
50 comhlacht gairmiil, comhlacht deonach agus
comhlacht seirbhs phoibl a bhfuil suim acu ar fad i
gcrainn.
Tuilleadh Eolais:
An Dr. Marion Coll, Stirthir, Comhairle Crann na
hireann, An Phirc, Baile tha Cliath 18.
r-phost: trees@treecouncil.ie
lithren grasin: www.treecouncil.ie
Grading of Monuments Discussion Doucument

A discussion document entitled "Study of Monument
Grading in the Republic of Ireland" was released at the
beginning of June 2003. This document is an extended
discussion paper outlining some of the issues that require
further consideration if useful decisions about the
appropriateness of monument grading are to be made.
The recent international trend towards grading or

evaluating aspects of the built heritage has sprung from
the need to prioritise resources towards the protection of
monuments of recognised value. The Irish National
Inventory of Architectural Heritage has made evaluation a
core aspect of its work. This document explores:
* the issues surrounding the implementation of a

monument grading scheme in Ireland
* in what circumstances grading is appropriate
* what criteria might be useful for evaluation
* the impact grading schemes might have on

monument protection, conservation and preservation, and
* interfaces with other related disciplines.
The assessment or grading of monuments has intrigued

the archaeological profession over the last twenty years.
The idea that it is possible or desirable to ascribe defined
levels of importance to aspects of the archaeological
heritage when the greater part of that resource is still an
unknown quantity is a concept that has been debated. The
proponents of monument grading argue that the best way
to progress research aims is to utilise a grading system,
and this stance has come to dominate the debate.
The grading of monuments is an objective form of cultural

resource management (CRM). The application of a CRM
approach permits decisions on what elements from the
past will be retained, cared for and used in the present
and the future. All cultural materials, including cultural
landscapes that have survived from the past, are
potentially cultural resources and have some potential
value or use in the present or future.
The document does not provide definitive answers on how

to decide which of the potential cultural resources are to
be saved and which to be sacrificed or left to decay, but
draws together some broad practical conclusions based on
the systems described. It is intended to be a working text
to inform future policies in the protection of Irelands
archaeological heritage. A limited number of copies are
available free from the Heritage Council; it can also be
obtained electronically from the Heritage Council at the
address below.
The Heritage Council, Rothe House, Kilkenny
tel: 056.70777 fax: 056 70788
e-mail: heritage@heritage.iol.ie
6. Waste Management
Environment Fund for 2003

On 24 April, 2003, Mr. Martin Cullen, T.D., Minister for the
a _55 million environmental expenditure programme
under the Environment Fund for 2003. The Environment
Fund, established with revenues obtained from the Plastic
Bag Levy introduced in March 2002 and the Landfill Levy
introduced in July 2002, will finance:
* further bring banks for recyclable materials
* civic amenity sites for recyclables and bulky

household wastes across the country
* litter prevention programmes, and
* waste awareness initiatives.
Direct grant assistance of _35 million is being made

available from the Environment Fund in respect of waste
recycling/recovery initiatives in 2003. It is intended that
the bulk of this expenditure - about _26 million - will go
towards new or improved recycling infrastructure, a
further _5 million will be provided to local authorities to
offset the rising operational costs of existing recycling
facilities and about _4 million will be provided to meet
local authority planning and procurement costs arising
from the provision of regional waste infrastructure.
Expenditure of _20 million is proposed on a range of other
waste and environmental measures.
The first round of recycling grants was announced by the

Minister in November 2002, and he announced a second
round of grant allocations totalling up to E8.35m in respect
of a further 17 local authority recycling projects on 24
April, 2003. Therefore, since November 2002, under the
EU co-financed waste management measure of the
Regional Operational Programmes, the Minister has
allocated over E22m towards 71 local authority recycling
projects, and further allocations will follow during the year.
This level of financial assistance is unprecedented, by

comparison, total grant assistance for recycling over the
five year term of the last Operational Programme was 7.7
million.
The grant assistance which has been allocated since

November 2002 will support:
* the provision of about 580 new bring bank sites

around the country (compared to about 1400 sites
currently)
* 25 new and 5 expanded civic amenity sites
* 9 composting facilities one new and one expanded

MRF, and
* the upgrading of many existing bring banks.
Among the other initiatives and measures to be supported

from the Environment Fund in 2003 are:
* the establishment of a National Waste Prevention
Programme
* the establishment of a Market Development

Programme for recyclable materials, a Recycling
Consultative Forum, and support for community recycling
initiatives
* a new waste education and awareness campaign,

and
* better enforcement of environmental legislation.
Details of expenditure on these individual initiatives will be

announced by the Minister over the coming months.
Rachel Dunn, Waste Infrastructure & Regulation.
tel: 01.888 2600 fax: 01.888 2014
e-mail: rachel_dunn@environ.irlgov.ie
Waste Management (Packaging) Regulations 2003

On 1 March, 2003, Mr Martin Cullen, T.D., Minister for
Environment, Heritage and Local Government announced
new regulations governing the collection and recycling of
packaging waste, entitled the Waste Management
(Packaging) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 61 of 2003)
The regulations, which came into effect on 1 March, 2003,

revise and replace previous regulations made in 1997, and
subsequent amending regulations made in 1998. They are
intended to facilitate the achievement of the end 2005
packaging waste recovery and recycling targets set for
Ireland in EU Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and
packaging waste, i.e., 50% recovery, 25% recycling, with a
minimum 15% recycling rate to be achieved in respect of
each packaging material. Ireland is disadvantaged
compared to most other Member States in that it does not
have any energy recovery capacity, which means that the
challenging recovery target of 50% will primarily have to
be achieved by means of recycling.
It is envisaged that the new regulations will also support

the progress made by Repak (the compliance scheme set
up by industry to ensure the recovery of packaging waste)
by ensuring that all producers (manufacturers, importers,
distributors, wholesalers and retailers) who participate in
the placing of packaging on the market, large or small,
play their part in meeting Irelands end 2005 targets under
the 1994 Packaging Directive.
The main feature of the new regulations is the introduction

of an obligation on all producers (both Repak and non-
Repak members) participating in the placing of packaging
on the market to:
* segregate specified packaging waste materials

arising on their own premises i.e.back-door packaging
waste, such as waste aluminium, cardboard, glass, paper,
plastic sheeting, steel and wood, and
* have it collected by authorised recovery operators for

recycling.
The regulations further provide that such waste materials

arising in the manufacturing/retail sector cannot be
landfilled. This new requirement is intended to influence
changed dynamics, practices and behaviour in relation to
packaging waste in the commercial sector, which accounts
for over 50% of overall packaging waste arisings. In effect,
the object of this new requirement is to ensure that any
such packaging waste that can be recycled in the
manufacturing/retail sector is recycled.
Further changes provided for in the new regulations
include:
* the "major producers" (who are subject to the main

requirements of the regulations) turnover threshold has
been reduced from E1.27m to E1m. This will broaden the
base of major producers
* it is made clear that packaging sold "and consumed"

on a producers premises comes within the scope of the
regulations, e.g., bottles sold and consumed in pubs, clubs
and hotels. This will again broaden the scope of the
regulations
* the requirement on self-complying major producers

(i.e., non-Repak members) to provide segregated take-
back facilities for the deposit of packaging waste by
customers may now be fulfilled either individually or in co-
operation with other self-compliers
* for the purpose of enhanced visibility and awareness

of the take-back requirements, specified signs indicating
(a) the obligation of self-complying major producers to
take back packaging waste from customers, or (b) the
exemption of Repak members from these requirements,
must now be of a specified minimum size and displayed at
each entrance to a major producers premises
* the annual registration fees which self-complying

major producers pay to local authorities are being
increased from 5 per tonne of packaging placed on the
market to E15 per tonne, subject to a minimum
registration fee of E500 and a maximum fee of E5,000 (up
from the previous range of between E254 and E1,270).
These increased registration fees should assist towards
meeting local authority enforcement costs
* self-complying major producers must now submit

quarterly returns to local authorities in relation to
packaging waste accepted, collected and recovered,
instead of monthly returns. This is intended to reduce the
administrative burden on self-compliers in submitting
returns and on local authorities in chasing the submission
of returns, and
* self-complying major producers must now submit a

new plan every three years to their local authority on the
steps which they propose to take to prevent and minimise
packaging waste.
In order for the regulations to have the desired effect, it is

necessary that the obligation to segregate specified back-
door packaging waste is complied with by all producers,
and equally that it is enforced by all local authorities. In
this regard, the Department has for the last eighteen
months co-ordinated a network of enforcement officers
from the major urban local authorities to facilitate
improved enforcement of the Packaging Regulations in
these areas. On foot of the new regulations, it is intended
to extend the network to all local authorities with a view to
ensuring effective enforcement of the new regulations on
a nationwide basis.
IBEC, in co-operation with the Department, conducted a

series of well-attended regional seminars during the
period end March to end May for the purpose of raising
awareness and informing businesses and local authorities
of the new requirements under the new regulations.
Terry Sheridan, Waste Prevention and Recovery Section.
tel: 01.888 2440 fax: 01.888 2014
e-mail: terry_sheridan@environ.irlgov.ie
WEEE Task Force Launched

On 19 February, 2003, Mr. Martin Cullen, T.D., Minister for
the Environment, Heritage and Local Government,
launched the Taskforce on the Implementation of the EU
Directives on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
(WEEE) and on the Restriction on Hazardous Substances
(RoHS).
The taskforce is being asked to develop proposals for a

Producer Responsibility Initiative (RPI) for e-waste or
techno trash, whereby the producers of electrical and
electronic goods will be obliged to put in place systems to
ensure that such waste is collected and recycled to the
greatest extent possible. In accordance with the WEEE
Directive, by August 2005, owners of e-waste will be
entitled to leave that waste back free of charge, either to
the place of purchase or to other authorised collection
points.
Electronic waste is one of the fastest growing waste

streams in the European Union. The European
Commission estimates that the electronic waste stream is
growing at 16-28% every 5 years, which is considerably
faster than the growth rate for municipal waste. Current
estimates are that some 1.6 billion tonnes of electronic
waste is generated in the EU per annum, which makes up
some 4% of municipal waste. As a consequence waste
from Electrical and Electronic Equipment has been
identified as a priority waste stream that needs to be
tackled.
The growth in electrical waste has particular relevance for

Ireland, both as a producer of electronic goods, and also
as a consumer. The Environmental Protection Agency has
estimated that up to 69,000 tonnes of electronic waste is
generated in Ireland each year, and that between 1991
and 2005 over 1 million tonnes will have been generated.
It is anticipated that large household appliances and
information technology equipment will make up the bulk
of this waste.
The Directive on the Restriction on the Use of Certain

Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic
Equipment requires that certain hazardous substances
used in electronic equipment, such as lead, are phased out
by 1 July, 2006.
The new Directives are being developed in response to the

EU decision that the management of electronic waste can
best be achieved by member states acting together.
Having different national policies on the management of
electronic waste, in most cases manufactured by global
corporations, would hamper the effectiveness of recycling
policies. For that reason these new Directives on Waste
Electrical and Electronic Equipment set down a common
framework for action across the EU.
The Directives are required to be transposed into Irish Law

by August 2004 and the Minister has requested the Task
Force to come up with comprehensive proposals for their
implementation in Ireland by the end of the year.
Sen O'Silleabhin, Waste Prevention & Recovery
Section.
tel: 01.888 2741 fax: 01.888 2994
e-mail:sean_o'suilleabhain@environ.irlgov.ie
New European Standard for Recycled Aggregates Use

The new European Standard, "Aggregates for Concrete",
which has now been adopted in Ireland as I.S. EN
12620:2002 will allow for the use of recycled aggregates
to be used in concrete production. The existing standard
assumes that the aggregate source is "naturally occurring
mineral aggregates", while the scope of the new standard
specifies the "properties of aggregates and filler
aggregates obtained by processing natural, manufactured
or recycled materials and mixtures of these aggregates for
use in concrete".
The new standard will co-exist with the existing Irish

Standard for aggregates for concrete "I.S. 5:1990" until it
will be withdrawn in June 2004
This is a significant change for both specifiers and

producers as it will allow construction waste that would
have been dumped, be used as a raw material. This will
also help conserve natural reserves of rock and gravel.
The new standard defines recycled aggregates as
"aggregate resulting from the processing of inorganic
material previously used in construction". The new
standard can be obtained from NSAI standard sales office
Glasnevin, Dublin 9, telephone no: 01.8073800 or through
the internet at www.standards.ie.
Marie Whelan, Executive to National Construction &
Demolition Waste Council, Construction Federation,
Construction House, Canal Road, Dublin 6.
tel: 01.406 6066 fax: 01.496 6953
e-mail: www.cif.ie
7. EU & International Environmental Matters
Environment Council
On 4 March 2003, the Environment Council met in Brussels
under the Greek Presidency.
At the meeting, the Council:
* held a policy debate, on the basis of a paper drawn

by the Presidency, concerning a proposal for a Directive on
the quality of bathing water
* adopted Conclusions concerning a thematic strategy

to protect and conserve the marine environment
* was informed by the Commission of the resumption

of authorisation procedures for new genetically modified
(GM) food products and adopted a common position on
the proposal for a Regulation on the transboundary
movement of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In
accordance with the co-decision procedure the text of the
common position will be sent to the European Parliament
for a second reading.
* held a policy debate on the proposal for a Directive

concerning environmental liability with regard to the
prevention and remedying of environmental damage.
* approved its contribution to the Spring European
Council (20-21 March, 2003) on the review of the
implementation of the Unions Sustainable Development
Strategy (SDS) and putting into practice the commitments
made at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable
Development.
* was informed by the Commission of the position with

regard to the preparations, including public consultation
for its forthcoming legislative package proposal on the
Unions new chemicals policy.
* was informed by the Commission of a proposal for a

Regulation concerning the critical uses and exports of
halons, the export of products and equipment containing
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and controls on
bromochloromethane

Decision on a monitoring mechanism of Community
greenhouse gas emissions and the implementation of the
Kyoto Protocol
* was informed by the Commission, at the request of

the Danish delegation, of the position concerning new
guidelines for assessing the presence of metabolites in
groundwater and that it was preparing two legislative
proposals which would address the issue of metabolites in
groundwater.

Directive on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) due to the use of organic solvents in
decorative paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing
products
* noted a joint intervention by the French and the

German delegations on the importance of promoting more
stringent limit values for exhaust gas from passenger cars
and lorries with diesel engines, and
* adopted a Directive providing for public participation
in environmental plans and programmes.
Bart Felle, Environment International.
tel: 01.888 2603 fax: 01.888 2696
e-mail: bart_felle@environ.irlgov.ie
Commission on Sustainable Development

The 11th Session of the U.N. Commission on Sustainable
Development (CSD 11) took place from 28th of April until
9th of May 2003 at the UN headquarters in New York.
During this session, the Commission was expected to take
important decisions on its future multi-year programme of
work and to consider new modalities for its organizational
arrangements.
Agenda 21 provided for the creation of the CSD to:
* ensure effective follow-up of UNCED
* enhance intergovernmental decision-making

capacity, and
* examine progress in the implementation of Agenda

21 at local, national, regional and international levels.
Convening for its first substantive session since the World

Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), held on the
10th year anniversary of CSD in Johannesburg in 2002, the
Commission commenced with a three-day high-level
segment, where over 40 high-level representatives at
ministerial level addressed the future modalities and work
programme of the CSD. Interactive Ministerial roundtables
took place, with the broad theme "Priority actions and
commitments to implement the outcomes of the World
Summit on Sustainable Development". In addition
regional implementation forums, a multi-stakeholder
dialogue with presentations by major groups on the future
work programme of the Commission and an interactive
discussion of the proposals by major groups were also
held.
Many Ministers stated the urgent need to implement the

Johannesburg targets and Millennium Development Goals,
as well as to expand the focus on water and energy, while
others welcomed the proposal in the SG report for a multi-
year programme of work organized as a series of two-year
cycles, with alternate years devoted to implementation of
review and policy, and for increased attention on
implementation at regional level.
In parallel with the CSD main session a number of side
events, including a "Partnerships Fair" and a "Learning
Center" were organized. Side events aimed mainly to
highlight voluntary partnerships that promote sustainable
development by and between governments, civil society
and the private sector. There was particular interest in
energy related side events. Energy, in all its dimensions
was the subject of various discussions, side events,
partnership presentations and other initiatives. European
Commissions presentation on partnerships in Water,
Energy and Forests was very successful. During these side
events the EU priorities of promoting renewable energy
sources, improving access to energy and promoting
energy efficiency and energy saving were highlighted.
The high level ministerial segment resulted in the

Chairpersons summary and the presentation of the draft
decision on the future programme, organization and
methods of work of the Commission. These documents
can be viewed on the UN website:
www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd.htm.
During the second week two working groups were formed

for the consideration and the final adoption of the Chairs
draft decision. CSD11 concluded with adoption of the
CSDs multi-year work programme for the period 2004-
2017, which will be organized as a series of two-year
action-oriented Implementation Cycles, with a Review
Session and a Policy Session in each cycle. Each two-year
cycle is expected to consider a thematic cluster of issues,
and a suite of cross-cutting issues, with the upcoming
2004/2005 cycle re CSD12 and CSD13 focusing on:
* water,
* sanitation, and
* human settlements.
It was also agreed that CSD12 would act as the

Preliminary Committee for the 10 year review of the
implementation of the Barbados Programme of Action for
the sustainable development of Small Island Developing
States (SIDs).
The CSD further decided on the modalities for reporting,

partnerships, and enhancing UN system coordination and
Major Groups contributions.
The session closed with the election of the Chair and

Bureau members of CSD12. Borge Brende, Norways
Minister for Environment, was elected CSD12 Chair by
acclamation. The Commission also elected Amb Bruno
Stagno (Costa Rica) as a Vice-Chair on behalf of the Latin
American and Caribbean Region. Chair Moosa indicated
that other Bureau members would be elected at a later
date.
Rosaleen Keane, Environment International Section.
tel: 01.888 2445 fax: 01.888 2014
e-mail: rosaleen_keane@environ.irlgov.ie
5th Environment for Europe Ministerial Conference

The fifth Ministerial Conference "Environment for Europe"
(EfE) concluded on 23 May, in Kiev, Ukraine, with the
adoption of the Ministerial Declaration, which underlined
the importance of the EfE process as a tool to promote
environmental protection and sustainable development in
the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE) region, thus contributing to wider peace and
security.
Environment Ministers and Heads of delegation from 51

countries in the UNECE region and the Representative of
the European Commission emphasized their common
goals with respect to the environment and highlighted
their common dedication to cooperating in achieving high
standards of environmental protection.
The "Environment for Europe" process has two main roles:
* it provides the pan-European political framework for

environmental co-operation in the UNECE region, and
* promotes convergence of environmental quality and

policies in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the
Newly Independent States (NIS), based on an
Environmental Action Programme (EAP) agreed in 1993
and endorsed by successive Ministerial conferences.
The Kiev conference took place in the context of a number

of significant developments that have taken place in the
past decade, which will affect the future environmental co-
operation in the Pan-European region. These include the
EU enlargement process, new co-operation mechanisms
between countries in Europe, the evolution of
environmental priorities and challenges from the Rio
Conference (1992) to the Johannesburg World Summit on
Sustainable Development (2002).
During the Conference, three Protocols to Conventions of

the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe were
adopted and opened for signature:
* thirty-three countries (including Ireland) and the

European Community signed the new Protocol on Strategic
Environmental Assessment to the UNECE Convention on
Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary
Context (Espoo Convention)
* twenty-two countries signed the new Protocol on Civil

Liability and Damage Caused by the Transboundary Effects
of Industrial Accidents on Transboundary Waters to the
UNECE Conventions on the Transboundary Effects of
Industrial Accidents and on the Protection and Use of
Transboundary Waters and International Lakes, and
* thirty-four countries (including Ireland) and the
European Community signed the new Protocol on Pollutant
Release and Transfer Registers to the UNECE Convention
on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-
making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters
(Aarhus Convention).
The Ministers and Heads of delegation also endorsed the

Guidelines for Strengthening Compliance with and
Implementation of Multilateral Environment Agreements
(MEAs) in the UNECE region.
Governments of all seven countries of the Carpathian

region adopted a Convention on Environment Protection
and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians, which
was opened for signature on 22 May and signed by Czech
Republic, Hungary, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro,
Slovakia and Ukraine.
The Kiev Conference adopted a groundbreaking

Environment Strategy for Countries of Eastern Europe,
Caucasus and Central Asia and applauded the efforts of
the Central Asian States to develop the Central Asian
Initiative on Environment, Water and Security, "Invitation
to Partnership."
Ministers and Heads of Delegation reaffirmed their support

to the Environmental Performance Review Programme of
UNECE and decided that the programme should continue.
They called upon the European Environment Agency to
prepare a fourth assessment report for the next ministerial
conference, building on new partnerships, especially with
UNECE and UNEP, and they expressed their support of the
UNECE Working Group on Environmental Monitoring and
its activities.
A number of other decisions were taken related to energy

for sustainable development, water for sustainable
development, biodiversity and education.
Addressing the future of the EfE process, Ministers and
Heads of delegation decided that EfE Ministerial
Conferences should be held on a regular and predictable
basis every four or five years, preferably in a host country.
They invited UNECE, through its Committee on
Environmental Policy and in consultation with other
principal subsidiary bodies, as appropriate, and in
cooperation with other relevant organizations and
institutions, to monitor the outcomes of the Kiev
Declaration in its work programme.
Rosaleen Keane, Environment International Section.
tel: 01.888 2445 fax: 01.888 2014
e-mail: rosaleen_keane@environ.irlgov.ie
World Environment Day

On 5 June 2003, World Environment day, Mr. Martin Cullen,
T.D., Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local
Government announced a range of measures being
undertaken to protect and conserve Irelands freshwater
resources. The announcements tied in with the theme of
World Environment Day 2003, "Water Two Billion People
are Dying for It". The theme calls on each of us to help
safeguard the source of life on our planet water.
Globally, two billion people do not have access to clean
water and/or sanitation.
In Ireland we are fortunate to have abundant supplies of

water to drink, to support industry and agriculture, and to
facilitate all the other uses that sustain our overall quality
of life. Nevertheless our freshwater resources are coming
under increased pressures and must not be taken for
granted. The measures announced were that:
* regulations have been drawn up identifying the whole

national territory of Ireland as the area for which an action
programme will be established and applied under the EU
Nitrates Directive. The regulations are designed to protect
water against pollution associated with agriculture. The
action programme will provide for a range of measures to
strengthen the application of established "good
housekeeping" rules for farming in all areas. It will consist
primarily of measures to provide better protection for the
environment at farm level and to monitor the effect of
these measures on farming practices and water quality.
The action programme will be developed over the coming
months in consultation with farming organisations and
other interested parties
* a new National Water Conservation Programme was

announced which is designed to identify and substantially
reduce the levels of unaccounted for water in Irelands
public water supply network. Studies have shown that up
to 47% of all water produced by treatment plants is
unaccounted for and that a very significant amount of this
is lost through leaks. The Water Conservation Programme
involves investment of $276 million to repair leaks and
upgrade the existing supply network. A portion of the new
allocations will be used by the local authorities for
information and awareness campaigns designed to
highlight what individual consumers can themselves do to
reduce water usage and demand on water resources, and
* funding of _100 million is being made available in

2003 for improvements to group water schemes. 4% of
households nationally depend on group water schemes
and this investment is intended to accelerate the provision
of treatment and disinfection facilities to bring group
water schemes up to the highest possible standards.
New EU Eco-label for Tourist Accommodation

As part of the on-going development of the EU Eco-label
scheme, the Commission have established ecological
criteria for the award of the eco-label to tourist
accommodation services (Commission Decision of 14 April,
2003). The award of the eco-label marks a departure
under the scheme from the traditional product groups
such as copying paper, detergents and household
electrical equipment, etc, to service providers.
The European Eco-label for tourist accommodation service

was created to reward accommodation services and
tourists that respect the environment. It signals
environmental good performance, as it offers an added
quality value to consumers when they are choosing a
holiday destination. Enterprises bearing the EU Eco-label
flower logo have been officially designated as being
among the most environmentally friendly in their area.
Among the range of suitable accommodation types that

are eligible to apply for an eco-label are:
* Hotels
* B & Bs
* Holiday dwellings
* Youth hostels
* Certain private establishments
The provision of overnight accommodation may include

the provision of food services, fitness activities and/or
green areas. Examples of environmentally friendly tourist
accommodation activities are those which use natural
building materials, conserve energy and other resources,
have non-smoking areas, avoid the use of hazardous
chemicals and wash linen with environmentally friendly
detergents.
Applications for an eco-label are processed through the

National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI), which is
the Irish national Competent Body for the EU Eco-label.
The NSAI provides information on the application
procedure, distributes the application pack and is
responsible for the verification of compliance prior to the
awarding of the Eco-label. The application pack comprises
a verification form and a user-manual, designed to
accompany the applicant through the process of
application.
Details on the Eco-label, including the range of criteria

that should be addressed to qualify for an award, are
available from the following website at:
http://www.eco-label-tourism.com/frameset/frameset.html
National Standards Authority of Ireland, Forfas, Glasnevin,
Dublin 9.
tel: 01.807 3889 fax: 01.807 3838
EU LIFE-Environment Programme 2004

In May 2003, the EU Commission announced details of the
EU LIFE Environment Programme 2004. The programme is
aimed at funding innovative demonstration projects by
partnerships involving industry, local and regional
authorities, and research establishments to improve the
environment.
The EU LIFE-Environment Programme is a financial

instrument which contributes to the development and
implementation of Community environment policy and
legislation through the support of innovative and
demonstration-type environmental projects. Funding of
eligible costs of up to 30% is available for income-
generating projects and up to 50% for other projects. On
average, eligible projects should have a duration of 18-36
months and involved a total cost of between E1 - E5m.
The specific objective of LIFE-Environment is to contribute

to the development of innovative and integrated
techniques and methods and to the further development
of Community environment policy. LIFE-Environment
demonstration projects should further this objective and
one of the following specific objectives:
* land use development and planning: integrate

considerations on the environment and on sustainable
development in land-use development and planning,
including in urban and coastal areas
* water management: promote the sustainable

management of groundwater and surface water
* impacts of economic activities: minimise the

environmental impacts of economic activities, notably
through the development of clean technologies and by
placing the emphasis on prevention, including the
reduction of emission of gases having a greenhouse effect
* waste management: prevent, reuse, recover and

recycle waste of all kind and ensure the sound
management of waste steams, and
* integrated production policy: reduce the

environmental impact of products through an integrated
approach to production, distribution, consumption and
handling at the end of their life-time, including the
development of environmentally-friendly products.
LIFE-Environment projects must set out to test an

innovative solution to an environmental problem and lead
to concrete practical results. Projects should be highly
visible, technically and, particularly, financially sound and
incorporate provisions for the widespread dissemination of
knowledge. The programme is not directed at research nor
at investment in existing technology; instead, it aims at
bridging the gap between research and development
results, and the actual implementation of technology.
The European Commission carries out the selection

process with the assistance of independent experts and in
informal consultation with the Member States. The
Commission evaluates projects strictly in accordance with
the EU Guidelines for the LIFE-Environment Programme.
The following 9 criteria are applied during the selection

procedures:
Two eligibility criteria:
* financial soundness of participants, and
* conformity with the scope of Life Environment III, as

defined in the legislation
Five evaluation criteria:
* coherence and quality of the proposal, integration

* demonstration character of the project and
dissemination of results
* community interest and environmental problem
* co-operation and transferability, and
* innovatory nature and progress.

Two bonus criteria:
* multinational approach, and
* job creation and SMEs.
Only projects that satisfy the two eligibility criteria are

sent on for assessment under the evaluation criteria.
Projects that score below a given threshold in any of the
five evaluation criteria are eliminated.
Preparing a LIFE-Environment proposal can take up to six

months, so the planning of a project should commence as
early as possible. As the Commission evaluation is based
solely on the information submitted by applicants on the
official application forms, applicants should take great care
in completing these forms to ensure that all relevant
sections are completed in the manner required. Applicants
should be highly focussed and strategic in their approach
to their application so that they can show that the
proposal satisfies all the key criteria. Innovation,
demonstration and transferability are the key elements for
a successful LIFE-Environment Project, but applicants
should pay special attention to the financial soundness
requirement of LIFE-Environment, i.e., the financial
stability of the project and all its participants.
The application guide for the LIFE-Environment

programme for 2003 is available from the LIFE-
Environment website at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/life/envir/infopk/index-en.htm.
Applications for funding under LIFE-Environment in 2004

must be submitted to Fionnuala ODwyer, Environmental
Awareness Section, Department of Environment, Heritage
& Local Government, Custom House, Dublin 1, by 17
October, 2003.
John Kiernan / Deirdre Kearney,
tel: 01.888 2906 fax: 01.888 2495
e-mail: john_kiernan@environ.irlgov.ie or
deirdre_kearney@environ.irlgov.ie
As Fianna Fil and Sinn Fin have such confidence in their

legal advice that Ireland will not face penalties from the
EU should we fail to introduce water charges for excess
use, I propose that they deal with Simon Coveneys
concerns by offering to pay any such fines from their own
party funds should this advice turn out to be wrong.
Yours, etc,
Fintan O Toole,Time to
make Attorney General
answerable for actions
A common thread is the pretence the AG is a special
creature above politics
Tue, Nov 10, 2015, 01:00
Fintan O'Toole
Attorney General Mire Whelan: The Fennelly report raised very serious
questions about her judgment. She gave seriously inconsistent evidence to
the inquiry. Photograph: Dara Mac Dnaill
The Attorney General is one of the most powerful and

influential people in the State. She is also one of the least
accountable. If she screws up, she does not have to
answer to anybody except the Taoiseach and then only in
private. Mire Whelan is widely respected, liked and
admired. But she came very badly out of the Fennelly
report into the resignation of the former Garda
commissioner, Martin Callinan. And she comes badly
out of the debacle over the establishment of a
commission of inquiry into the Siteserv controversy that
did not have the legal powers to do the job.
This happens people get things wrong. But in a
democracy it is crucial that when it happens, the person
responsible has to explain how and why things went so
badly awry. Yet a combination of colonial overhang, legal
pomposity and political convenience gives us a powerful
public servant who does not answer to the public.
The Fennelly report raised very serious questions about
the AGs judgment. She gave seriously inconsistent
evidence to the inquiry. She first told the judge that
decades of recording phone calls in and out of Garda
stations [was] in complete violation of the law, with total
disregard for the requirements of ministerial
authorisation and of the rights of the citizen. She said
this was criminal activity being engaged in by An Garda
Sochna and a most grievous matter.
Startlingly, she later made a written submission to the
inquiry that presented what the report termed a
substantially modified view in which she said her
previous trenchant language had left the commission
with an erroneous impression as she meant only that
there was a potential illegality.
The gulf between these two positions is disturbingly
wide.
In a functioning democracy, citizens would be able to
hear from the holder of such a pivotal office how she
came to so substantially modify her evidence to an
inquiry established by the Oireachtas.
ADVERTISEMENT
<ahref="https://secserv.adtech.de/adlink|3.0|826.0|6282473|0|
170|ADTECH;loc=300;alias=;cookie=info;kvinline=1"
target="_blank"target="_blank"><img
src="https://secserv.adtech.de/adserv|3.0|826.0|6282473|0|170|
ADTECH;loc=300;alias=;cookie=info;kvinline=1"
border="0"></a>
A Dil committee would take her through the events and
her reaction to them and give her the opportunity to
explain herself. She might, after all, have had very good
reasons for her different views, and changing ones mind
is not inherently ignoble. But the very suggestion that
this might happen was treated like a proposal for an orgy
in a cathedral.
Pomposity
A fug of pomposity surrounds the office of Attorney
General . The courts call the AG a great officer of State
and an independent constitutional officer. But in
practice, the system does nothing to make the AG really
and truly independent of politics. We end up with the
worst of both worlds a highly political office sealed off
by a fiction of complete political independence. The AG
cant answer questions because that would threaten an
independence the role does not in fact have.
The odour of sanctity that hangs over the office like a

protective veil is really a cheap perfume. The role is
utterly political. Bizarrely, the AG can be a sitting TD
John Kelly fulfilled both roles in 1977 and thus subject
to a party whip. The AG is appointed technically by the
President but in reality by the Taoiseach personally. Is it
mere coincidence that the Taoiseach habitually finds the
best person for this independent office among the
ranks of supporters of one of the parties in power?
Once appointed, the AG serves at the whim of the
Taoiseach, who can sack the AG for any reasons which
to him seem sufficient. Her tenure is entirely subject to
the arbitrary whims of the Taoiseach.
If this seems like a throwback to a colonial monarchy, its
because it is. The office of AG was recognised in the
Ministers and Secretaries Act of 1924, but it was not
created: it assumed all the business, powers,
authorities, duties and functions of the colonial-era
office of Attorney General for Ireland. The 1937
Constitution further recognised the office, but it didnt
create any mechanisms to make it accountable.
Essentially, the Constitution incorporates an old colonial
institution into the governance of a republic without
making it fit for democratic purpose.
And yet this office exercises vast political power. How
often do we hear that something that is urgently needed
cant be done because of the advice of the AG? In effect,
the AG has become a one-person Supreme Court,
deciding in advance that legislation cant be proposed
because, in the view of that single individual, it might be
unconstitutional. Politicians, in turn, hide behind the
AG: Eamon Gilmores new book, for example, justifies
the grotesque 14-year prison term for any woman using
abortion pills because the AG decreed it to be necessary.
Unaccountable
We know from repeated experience that unaccountable
power makes for bad governance. We see bad
governance at work in the Fennelly report and we see it
again in the fiasco of the Siteserv inquiry. A common
thread is the pompous pretence that the AG is a special
creature, above politics and above accountability. This
new debacle must be a catalyst for legislation to make
the AG answerable for her actions. Or would that have
trouble getting past the AG as well?
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-time-to-make-
attorney-general-answerable-for-actions-1.2423493
Kenny says he will publish

IBRC inquiry chairs letter
Taoiseach says he will publish Brian Cregans
correspondence outlining legal concerns
Tue, Nov 10, 2015, 17:01
Marie O'Halloran
Taoiseach Enda Kenny. Photograph: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg

Taoiseach Enda Kenny said he would publish the letter
from Mr Justice Brian Cregan, the chairman of the inquiry
into Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC) sell-offs, to
him about his legal concerns over the inquiry later today.
AG Whelan may face attack

over IBRC legal problems
Further scrutiny on Attorney General as some believe she
should have anticipated issues
Tue, Nov 10, 2015, 01:00
Fiach Kelly
Attorney General Maire Whelans role came under scrutiny following the
publication of the Fennelly report. Photograph: Aidan Crawley
In his recent book, Inside the Room: The Untold Story of
Irelands Crisis Government, former Tnaiste Eamon
Gilmore describes Enda Kennys reaction when the then
Labour leader nominated Mire Whelan as Attorney
General.
He didnt know her, but he expressed strong doubts about
her appointment, wrote Mr Gilmore.
The Government has been requested not to make a
decision on how to proceed with the IBRC investigation
until an interim report is complete.
The Department of Finance first raised concerns in August
about the confidentiality and privileged nature of some of
the documents to the Commission of Investigation into the
Irish Bank Resolution Corporation.
Cliff Taylor: 200,000 pages

of IBRC evidence that
cannot be used
No easy way out for the Government, but the problems
were clear from the start
Tue, Nov 10, 2015, 01:00
Cliff Taylor
The Department of Finance argued that although the information is

confidential, the Commission could overrule this. Photograph: Frank Miller
The Commission of Investigation now has 200,000 pages
of documents on many of the key IBRC transactions it has
been asked to investigate, including the Siteserv deal. The
trouble is that it does not believe it has the legal power to
use these to progress its investigation, mainly because it
believes the information is confidential to many of the
borrowers of the former Anglo Irish Bank.
Fianna Fil has fixed the
leak, but not the drain
Partys U-turn on water charges will not wash with EU, or
with low-income taxpayers
about 15 hours ago
Harry McGee
Fianna Fil leader Michel Martin: The party reverting to water being paid for
out of general taxation could be seen as politically opportunistic and seriously
out of step with its own voters. Photograph: Eric Luke
Its good to see Fianna Fil has comprehensively
addressed the leakage problem. Seven years after agreeing
in principle to the introduction of water charges and
meters, and after leaking hundreds of thousands of votes
during the recession, it has comprehensively fixed the
problem with a nakedly populist U-bend.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fianna-fil-has-
fixed-the-leak-but-not-the-drain-1.2994337?
mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Ffianna-f
%25C3%25A1il-has-fixed-the-leak-but-not-the-drain-
1.2994337
COVENEY HIDING BEHIND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Coveney says current Dil is

no longer politics as normal
Minister says it is important that collective cabinet
responsibility is taken seriously
Wed, Jul 6, 2016, 11:20 Updated: Wed, Jul 6, 2016,
TD Clare Daly, speaking in the Dil, has shared a letter sent to her
by a woman who received a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality for
her unborn son.
Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Environment
Simon Coveney maintains that anybody who thinks that
politics in Ireland should be politics as normal doesnt
understand the new realities of politics.
Can the EU make Ireland

introduce water charges?
A fresh political row has erupted over the potential abolition
of charges...
NEWS
Picture by Yves Logghe AP/Press Association Images
After a few months of relative calm, the ongoing political

row over the future of water charges has erupted yet
again.
The latest controversy surrounds Housing Minister Simon
Coveney's suggestion that he would not bring forward laws if
the new system did not include charges for households who
waste water.
measures, and he will not legislate to get rid of them.
"I am not going to take a position that is contrary to the
Attorney General's office," he argued. "That would just be
blatantly irresponsible of me."
The remarks came as it was reported that the majority of a
special Oireachtas committee appear to be in favour of the
total scrapping of water charges.
What are the EU rules?
Minister Coveney was referring to the EU's Water Framework
Directive - adopted in 2000 - which introduced various
obligations on member states.
The directive introduced rules under the 'polluter pays'
principle.
The EU explains: "Adequate water pricing acts as an incentive
for the sustainable use of water resources and thus helps to
achieve the environmental objectives under the Directive.
"Member States will be required to ensure that the price
charged to water consumers - such as for the abstraction and
distribution of fresh water and the collection and treatment of
waste water - reflects the true costs."
However, the EU acknowledged that while the principle of
dedicated water charges has long-since been in place in some
countries, it was not the case in other member states.
Speaking on Newstalk Breakfast, UCD law Professor Gavin
Barrett explained: "There must be a polluter pays system.
There must be a system whereby users make some sort of
'adequate contribution', to use the words of the directive.
"The idea that you can completely abolish water charges is
simply not on," he suggested.
Simon Coveney has argued that Ireland is 'likely' be brought
before European courts if we attempt to abolish charges -
which could lead to the State facing massive fines if we are
found to be in violation of EU directives.
Disagreement
Water charges have led to major protests in recent years. Image:
RollingNews.ie
Opposition parties, however, have disputed the legal advice
cited by Mr Coveney - suggesting that they have in fact
received advice to the contrary.
Sinn Fin MEP Lynn Boylan last year said that legal advice
she has received confirms charges can be scrapped.
In a statement today, she called on Simon Coveney to release
his advice, arguing: "The reason that the advice needs to be
published is because there is legal advice to the contrary as
well as a dearth of information of obfuscation and
deceitfulness on behalf of the European Commission on this
subject."
She added: There needs to be clarity around the EU
commission position on water charges instead of conveniently
hiding behind simple narratives because of fear of the
complexity of the Water Framework Directive."
Fianna Fil - which supports water being paid for through
general taxation - has also indicated that it has legal
advice suggesting abolition would comply with EU directives.
Professor Barrett was "astonished" that legal advice would
suggest that water charges can be abolished.
"I don't know where they got that legal advice - I'm sure
whoever gave it gave it in good faith, but I don't believe its
correct," he argued.
Irish Water itself, meanwhile, has warned that there is no way
to abolish charges and provide water for free.
'Established practice'
Another ambiguity revolves around the issue of 'established
practice' for water charges.
Last year, Lynn Boylan submitted a question to the European
Commission, asking if flexibility previously afforded to Ireland
on water charges still applies after the (currently suspended)
charging regime came into effect in 2015.
In a response, the Commission said: "If the established
practice is to have a system in place implementing the
recovery of the costs of water services, in accordance with the
polluter pays principle, the Commission considers that the
flexibility afforded to Member States [...] would not apply".
The Sinn Fin MEP claimed the advice was 'deliberately
vague', adding: "I don't think that anybody in their right mind
would say that the established practice in Ireland is Irish
Water."
Ultimately, the Government will struggle to have any water
charges reintroduced as a majority of TDs oppose the idea.
In its agreement with Fianna Fil, Fine Gael pledged to
"facilitate the passage of legislation [...] for the implementation
of the recommendations in relation to domestic water
charging".
Any departure from the deal could see the minority
government under serious pressure.
For now, however, we will have to wait for the Oireachtas
committee to deliver their final verdict and recommendations.
European Commission's
response on water charges
'deliberately vague' - MEP
Lynn Boylan
A response from the Commission has suggested that Ireland
cannot abolish charges
NEWS
Lynn Boylan. Image: RollingNews.ie
An Irish MEP says the European Commission's response

to a parliamentary question on water charges is
'deliberately vague'.
Sinn Fin's Lynn Boylan submitted a priority question to the
Commission seven weeks ago, asking if flexibility previously
afforded to Ireland on water charges still applies.
In a response issued today, the Commission said: "If the
established practice is to have a system in place implementing
the recovery of the costs of water services, in accordance with
the polluter pays principle, the Commission considers that the
flexibility afforded to Member States [...] would not apply".
It has been suggested that the response indicates that Ireland
cannot breach the EU's Water Framework Directive and
abolish charges.
However, MEP Boylan claims the statement is "deliberately
vague to cover the fact that they know that Ireland can abolish
Irish Water if it so wishes - and they don't want to put that in
black and white".
Speaking to Newstalk.com, she explained: "The response is
based on what they call established practices. I don't think that
anybody in their right mind would say that the established
practice in Ireland is Irish Water. Not with the compliance level
we have, not with the election results, not with the mass
mobilisation on the streets - the established practice in Ireland
is paying for water through general taxation".
She suggested that the EU can only assess the Irish
compliance with the directive when the Government submits a
river basin management plan - which is not expected to be
ready for submission until 2017.
"It is completely in the gift of the Irish Government to respect
the democratic wishes of the Irish people, and to say that the
established practice in Ireland is to pay through general
taxation," MEP Boylan added.
Meanwhile, Sinn Fin TD Pearse Doherty has claimed that
Irish Water's estimate that it would cost around 100 million to
abolish the utility was 'plucked from the air'.
http://www.newstalk.com/European-Commissions-
response-on-water-charges-deliberately-vague--MEP-
Lynn-Boylan
Government defeats motion

to abolish Irish Water
Fianna Fil abstained in the voting
NEWS
The Government has defeated an attempt by Sinn Fin to

abolish Irish Water and scrap charges immediately.
Fianna Fil abstained in votes tonight, meaning the minority
had comfortable winning margins.
In the end the Government's counter-motion - which basically
outlined the compromise deal reached with Fianna Fil -
passed by 59 votes to 38.
The Dil began debating the motion yesterday.
The motion, from four opposition parties, called for the utility to
be abolished, and for domestic water charges to be
immediately scrapped.
Both the government and Fianna Fil tabled their own
counter-motions.
Eoin Broin is Sinn Fin TD for Dublin Mid-West.
He says Independent TDs - and Fianna Fil in particular -
need to explain themselves.
Niall Collins is Fianna Fil spokesperson for jobs.
He says they have lived up to their election promises.
Niall Collins
Yesterday, the minister with responsibility for the charge
Simon Coveney claimed the State would face immediate costs
of up to 160m if Irish Water was scrapped.
Scrapping Irish Water could

cost up to 160m
immediately - Simon
Coveney
He told the Dil the cost could rise into the billions
NEWS
Defence Minister Simon Coveney talks to the media in Dublin |

Image: RollingNews.ie
The State would face immediate costs of up to 160m if

Irish Water was scrapped, according to the minister in
charge.
Simon Coveney says the costs would be rung up from having
to let go of staff who transferred from local authorities.
But he has also told the Dil the cost could rise into the
billions, as potential savings would be lost in future.
Minister Coveney says the costs were calculated as part of
Fine Gael's pre-government talks with Fianna Fil.
His comments come after an uncertain 24 hours over the
water charges.
The minority Government now looks set to defeat an
opposition motion on water charges on Wednesday, despite
uncertainty about a junior minister and what Fianna Fil would
do.
Independent TD and Minister of State John Halligan will now
support the Government,
after earlier suggesting yesterday he might side with the
opposition.
Yesterday, Mr Halligan said: "In conscience I don't agree with
Irish Water and I think it should be scrapped."
"I think Irish Water is finished as an entity," he added.

It later emerged Mr Halligan had changed his mind, and would
now side with the Government.
Meanwhile, Fianna Fil has refused to support
the motion calling for the abolition of the charges. Fianna Fil
has refused to support an opposition motion calling for
the abolition of water charges.
The party will instead table a counter-motion backing the
suspension of the charges while a commission examines the
issue.
Fianna Fil agreed to facilitate the Fine Gael-led minority
government last month after reaching a deal to postpone
water payments for nine months.
But its prior commitment to getting rid of the utility will come
under scrutiny when a Right2Water motion seeking the
immediate scrapping of the charges comes before the Dil
tomorrow night.
Independent TD and Minister of State John Halligan yesterday
ruled out backing the cross-party motion, which is signed by
39 TDs, having earlier suggested he would support the vote.
Sinn Fin TD Eoin OBroin told Newstalk Breakfast that the
motion to end the charges mirrors the wording of Fianna Fils
pre-election position on water.
But Fianna Fil housing spokesperson Barry Cowen
today dismissed the vote as political point-scoring and called
on opposition TDs to instead engage with the water
commission.
The minority Government looks set to defeat an
opposition motion on water charges on Wednesday,
despite uncertainty about a junior minister and what
Fianna Fil would do.
Independent TD and Minister of State John Halligan will now
support the Government, after earlier suggesting he might
side with the opposition.
And Fianna Fil says it will not support the motion put down by
Sinn Fin and other opposition TDs.
The party says it will table a counter-motion on the issue.
The vote on Wednesday night initially looked set to be the first
real test of the minority Government on the issue of water
charges.
39 TDs from Sinn Fin, AAA-PBP, the Social Democrats and
some independents want the charges scrapped immediately.
People Before Profit deputy Richard Boyd Barrett says water
charges are dead and should be buried in the Dil this week.
But he is now back onboard as the Government counter-
motion restates what is in the Programme for Government and
facilitation agreement with Fianna Fil, while Minister Simon
Coveney said earlier he would speak to Mr Halligan to give
him "the reassurance he needs on an issue which I know is
very delicate for him".
Deputy Mick Barry from the AAA-People Before Profit group
says the motion has three objectives:
http://www.newstalk.com/Simon-Coveney-Irish-Water-
costs-scrapped-water-charges
Sinn Fin disputes claim

water charges cannot be
removed
The EU directive on water makes it clear that there is no route
to abolishing water charges, the leaked assessment claims
Sinn Fin is disputing a leaked legal opinion claiming
Ireland cannot roll back water charges.
After seeking legal advice, Irish Water was warned that there
is no way to abolish charges and provide water for free.
However, Sinn Fin MEP Lynn Boylan said this was not the
case, and called on Irish Water's parent company Ervia to
publish the legal advice it in full.
"We have it in black-and-white from the Commission,
regardless of a legal opinion or not, saying that there's
no obligation on Ireland to use individual consumption to be
fully in compliance with the Water Framework Directive
(WFD), said Boylan.
Water charges are seen as a stumbling block to potential
coalition talks between Fianna Fil and Fine Gael who hold
opposing positions on payment.
Reports at the weekend suggested that the deadlock may
push the country towards a second election, but Anti-Austerity
Alliance Paul Murphy believes that the promise of Michael
Martin and his party to abolish water charges might not come
to pass.
Speaking on Newstalk Breakfast, Murphy said "I don't trust
Fianna Fil as far as I can thrown them [...] the only way to
ensure abolition is to do two things. One is to step up the
boycott and the second thing is we need a massive, united
demonstration on the streets".
As a result of the legal advice given to Irish Water, Fianna
Fil's position on the matter is no longer tenable, and
speaking on Newstalk's Lunchtime show, Associate Professor
and Jean Monnet Chair at the UCD Sutherland School of Law
Gavin Barrett explained that it was something that all political
parties should have known already.
"The WFD was introduced a number of years ago at European
level with the idea of regulating water supplies in Europe and
ensuring pollution be minimised and security of supplies.
"One of the tenets of the WFD is the idea that the polluter or
the consumer essentially pays and that there must be some
relation between the consumption of water and paying for the
cost of that water".
Barrett argues that there is no excuse for all parties involved in

the negotiations to claim ignorance on this front "because it
has been obvious for quite some time that this was the case".
"They should have known it," added Barrett "that is certainly
the case [...] it was open to anyone to get a copy of the
directive, we all know the WFD is out there, it was open to any
of the political parties to read it, and I was simply astonished
myself with the attitude of many of the political parties going in
there and behaving as if European Union law simply didn't
exist".
Barrett outlines that there had been a way for countries which
had an "established practice" of not charging for water
included in the WFD, but since the adoption of legislation on
the matter, there is now no way to roll back that would not
leave Ireland in violation of EU laws.
The consequences of such a breach are serious, as it means
that Ireland could be prosecuted by the Commission in front of
European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, as Barrett explains:
"There are specific provisions for very hefty fines and indeed,
running penalty payments; in other words payments on a daily
or weekly basis as a result of you continuing to break the law.
There really is no way out in relation to this".
Another suggestion was that there could be a suspension of
charges while the new government or coalition finds a way to
deal with the issue, and possibly abolish Irish Water.
However, this is yet another dead end, as Barrett states that
"there's no provision for suspending your compliance with EU
law, you're either in compliance with it or you're not".
Legal advice confirms water

charges can be scrapped,
says MEP
Fianna Fil has also reportedly proposed that charges be
abolished
NEWS
Sinn Fein MEP Lynn Boylan speaking to the media outside

Leinster House in Dublin | Image: Rollingnews.ie
Dublin Sinn Fin MEP Lynn Boylan says legal advice she
has has received confirms Irish Water charges can be
scrapped.
This claim contradicts the view of the European Commission,
which states that the charges cannot be removed.
Speaking from Leinster House, Ms Boylan said: "The legal
opinion that I have received has confirmed what we have been
saying all along, that the abolition of water charges would not
contravene the water framework directive providing that
Ireland can meet the objectives of the directive which is about
the conservation and protection water.
"I welcome Fianna Fils new found commitment to scrap
water charges. Coming from the architects of water charges
this is a major and welcome departure from Fianna Fil.
"The majority of TDs elected to the Dil in February were
elected on anti-water charges mandates. Now that Fianna Fil
have accepted this there is a clear majority in favour of
scrapping water charges.
"The expert commission is now redundant. It should be
scrapped and the issue should be dealt with by the Dil."
The legal advice, from Matthias Kelly QC and published by Ms
Boylan, is summarised as saying: "Member States were free
to determine, on the basis of an economic analysis, the
measures to be adopted for the purposes of the application of
the principle of recovery of costs.
"How the Directive was to be implemented was left to the
Member State, so long as the steps taken did not impede or
compromise the objectives of the Directive.
"There is a wide margin of appreciation. The Directive
explicitly states that a Member State may have regard to its
own economic and social considerations in deciding upon
costs recovery."
"Shamelessly backtracking"
Fianna Fil has reportedly proposed that the water system be
paid for through general taxation and that the principle of
charging for usage should be permanently abolished.
The Irish Times says the party made the proposals in a
statement to the Expert Commission on Domestic Public
Water Services on how water services should be funded.
Its submission says the entire system should be funded
through general taxation by way of direct subvention from the
exchequer.
This marks a move away from its previous position, that
charges should only be suspended for nine months.
While Green Party leader Eamon Ryan said: "Fianna Fils u-
turn on the issue of water charges is a return to populist
economics, which will cost us all dearly in the end.
In 2009 the Green Party and Fianna Fil agreed to implement

the recommendation of the Commission on Taxation to
introduce a charge which would promote conservation of
scarce water supplies.
"That commitment was written into our revised Programme for
Government, without any objection from any of the Fianna Fil
negotiators. There was common agreement on the need to
take investment in environmental infrastructure seriously,
while protecting those on low incomes.
"Now Fianna Fil are shamelessly backtracking in an attempt
to win back electoral support from Sinn Fin and the
AAA/PBP.
"Michael Martin has presented no economic, social or
environmental argument for the u-turn they have made."
Water protests: The European Commission has warned that Ireland could face
fines because of the decision to suspend water charges. Photograph: The
Irish Times
Fianna Fil has proposed that the water system be paid for
through general taxation and that the principle of charging
for usage should be abolished for good. The party made
the proposals in a statement to the commission on how
water services should be funded.
Talks aimed at forming a new Government are set to
resume on Tuesday, over a month after polling day in the
General Election.
As yet, there has been no breakthrough in talks to find a
coalition, with reports suggesting that unless an agreement is
reached soon, it could force a second election.
However, it is reported that Fine Gael is now considering
abandoning its pledge to scrap the Universal Social Charge
(USC), but only if Fianna Fil backs off its own plans to scrap
water charges, which is believed to have been one of the
reasons behind the ongoing impasse in the negotiations.
The USC had been a red line issue in the lead up to the
election, and Group Political Editor at Independent News and
Media, Kevin Doyle, says Fine Gael now admits that tactic
was wrong.
"Promising that widespread tax cut, taking 4 billion out [of the
economy], people saw through it. It was the classic old thing of
'buy me with my own money', and people didn't want that".
However Eamon O'Cuiv of Fianna Fil refused to be drawn on
the suggestion, and again re-iterated that there was a
fundamental gap between the two sides:
"Fianna Fil have a totally different approach to the progress
of this nation from Fine Gael. Just as people understand that
the Anti-Austerity Alliance (AAA) are very different from Fianna
Fil in their approach, we have a fundamentally different
approach [from Fine Gael]".
The deadlock between Fine Gael and Fianna Fil over
water charges may push the country towards a second
election.
The Irish Independent reports that Fianna Fil is set to dig its
heels in and demand the suspension of water bills when Enda
Kenny contacts the party to seek Michel Martin's consent for
a minority government.
Senior sources in Fianna Fil say the single biggest obstacle
to a deal is the parties' stances on water charges, and that
they will not support a minority government unless agreement
is first reached on that issue.
Speaking on Friday at a commemorative event for the 1916
Rising, Enda Kenny said that "the only way forward as a
nation is to sit down together, work hard, and build a better
future".
Acting Minister Pascal Donohue stated that talks will happen
between the two parties at some stage and "we owe it to
those who have an interest in putting together a stable
government to see if a programme for government is possible.
I would anticipate at the conclusion of those discussions and
at a point in the future, we would then engage with other like-
minded parties - which would include Fianna Fil".
Fine Gael sources directly involved in the negotiations told the
Irish Independent that the issue of Irish Water and water
charges is not up for negotiation, and if Fianna Fil demands
the abolition of charges "then we're heading into another
election".
Acting Minister Paschal Donohoe says Fine Gael and

Fianna Fil will hold coalition talks "in the future".
It comes as dicussions between Fine Gael, the Green Party
and 15 independent TDs took place yesterday.
The TDs were divided into so-called 'breakout groups' to talk
about individual subject areas.
However, there is agreement within Government Buildings that
the support of Fianna Fil will be needed to ensure a
government is stable.
Mr Donohoe says talks between the main rival parties are
inevitable.
"We owe it to those who have an interest in putting together a
stable government to see if a programme for government is
possible", he told Newstalk Breakfast.
"I would anticipate at the conclusion of those discussions and
at a point in the future, we would then engage with other like-
minded parties - which would include Fianna Fil".
But asked if his Fine Gael party had reached out to Fianna
Fil, he replied: "At this moment, no we haven't".
However, Mr Donohoe says the two parties will sit down
eventually.
Eurofound-treaty_of_lisbon-2017-03-02 Treaty of Lisbon
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/printpdf/observatories
/eurwork/industrial-relations-dictionary/treaty-of-lisbon
Water Charges, By The Meter
The (Tolled) Road To Privatisation
The country took one step closer to water privatisation recently with
the announcement that Celtic Anglian Water have landed the contract
for the Waste Water Treatment Plant, part of the Waterford Main
Drainage Project. The Irish Examiner described them as the
international division of Anglian Water. However, a quick scan of the
companys website tells a different story, Anglian water have only a 50%
stake. Celtic Anglian water (CAW), is listed on the NTR (national toll
roads) website as a subsidiary company. Along with such shining lights
of Irish capitalism as Greenstar, Airtricity, Bioverda, Irish Broadband and
National Toll Roads themselves.
According to the NTR

The company currently holds a 20-year contract to operate Dublin's new
wastewater treatment plant at Ringsend. With the capacity to treat sewage
from a population of 1.7 million, it is the largest and most advanced
wastewater treatment plant in Europe.
CAW also operates a new water treatment facility in Sligo and is tendering
for further contracts under the government's investment programme for
water and sewage services. In 2005, CAW was awarded the Galway Non-
Domestic Metering Project Contract.
With regard to the Galway Non-Domestic Metering Project, The Tuam

Herald ran a story on the 24th August last warning its readers about The
End Of Cheap Water. Businesses would bear the brunt, they told us. They
would have to pay by the gallon from January 1st.
(cut and paste used as password needed to access site)
Most businesses have been paying fixed charges for water for a number
of years, usually referred to as water rates, but many smaller non-domestic
users and farms have escaped the net until now.
The last fixed-charge bills are being issued by Celtic Anglian Water in
conjunction with Galway Co. Council and this Athenry-based company will
be taking charge of all metering and bill services on behalf of Galway Co.
Council. The council will continue to be responsible for water supply,
pressure and water quality.
Co. Council Director of Service Jim Cullen explained that up to now a non-
domestic user such as a hotel would pay a fixed charge for water no matter
how much was used. From January 1st next this business will be metered
and billed according to the volume used.
This he explained was a fairer method of paying for the service and is in
line with EU policy.
The EU policy he is referring to is called the Water Framework Directive,

which requires pricing policies to be in place by 2010.
He (Jim Cullen) added that the metering system was a requirement under
an EU directive and it is designed to conserve water by encouraging users
to waste less. It is based on the user pays principle and should benefit the
environment.
Very interesting bit of flawed logic in that last sentence as it is not water
itself that costs money but rather the infrastructure, which is used by
consumers equally. Therefore the costs, if any, should be borne equally by
all consumers. I had assumed, wrongly it seems, that that is where our
taxes went. Another double taxation anyone?
Schools and Farms, to take two examples, are high users, which under
the user pays principle would see their costs rocket. The social effect of
this policy does not appear to have been a factor in the decision making
process. As will become painfully apparent in a few short years when the
domestic consumer is expected to pay for their water too, as per the
European Water Framework Directive. And you thought the bin tax was
unpopular!
Dick Roche seems unlikely to discuss the issue of water privatisation for
the domestic consumer before the next election. For a party hanging on by
a thread, that is probably a wise move. They have already angered their
voter base, the farming community, with these charges. The Roscommon
Herald on August 9th carried a story called IFA meets Minister Roche on
water charges issue. The rocky road ahead for Fianna Fail was apparent
in the opening paragraph
IFA recently met the Minister for the Environment, Mr Dick Roche, to
inform him of the deep anger among farmers in the county at the significant
costs which will result from new water charging policies.
The closing paragraph carried the threat.
Roscommon IFA County Executive called on all farmers in the county not
to pay any water charges until Minister Roche clarified the situation. And
so it begins.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E3DC13ABD
On Tuesday 25th April, in a Dail Debate, Mr. Roche had this to say
Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local
Government the position on water charges for national schools; if these
rates are in line with policy governing this area; the way in which the
standard rate is calculated; if the rates increase with the size of the school;
and if he will make a statement on the matter?
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Roche):
Local authorities are required to recover the cost of providing water
services from the users of these services, with the exception of
householders. The cost of providing water services to the non-domestic
sector should be fully recovered by local authorities by means of a meter-
based volumetric charge. While current arrangements for schools may, as
with other non-domestic users, be based on fixed water services charges,
local authorities are moving towards the metering of all non-domestic water
use.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S54D12ABD
These charges will no doubt be passed on to the parents of children

attending the school, who will have to foot another bill for free education.
Just three short days later on the 28th April, IBEC had this to say on the
issue of water charges.
Businesses may be forced to pay higher charges to local authorities if the
government fails to reform local government
Business and employers group IBEC issued the warning after Minister for
Environment Dick Roche TD refused to implement key recommendations
of the Indecon Report into local authority funding published last month -
such as introducing domestic water charges and imposing a new tax on
non-principal private residences.
Many of the services provided by local government were essential to the
functioning of all sectors of society, but it was only business which is
picking up the bill.
Among the major reforms demanded by IBEC were the introduction of

water meters into all homes, subjecting the accounts of local authorities
spending in excess of 9 billion to review by the Comptroller and Auditor
General and the introduction of an efficiency fund to reward Local
Authorities that demonstrated high levels of efficiency.
Minister Roche dismissed fears of a shortfall in funding, claiming local

authorities should have adequate resources to meet demands in 2006 and
beyond. He added that he was fully committed to the pursuit of further
efficiency in local government and want to see the bang for every buck that
is spent.
http://www.techcentral.ie/small_business/Higher_charges/
I tend to distrust the use of words like should as it implies that maybe they
wont and he knows it and is covering his ass.
So IBEC are spearheading the charge (no pun intended) for domestic
water charges on the basis of fairness. Its damaging to the economy, be
afraid be very afraid.
Another incidental, Mr Brian Geoghegan, who is a former chairman of FS

and was IBEC's director of economic policy until recently, is of course
married to the Mammy Harney who just recently got herself out of the line
of fire. How unpopular would the PDs be when Mr Mary Harneys former
group gets its way and you, the ordinary punter, start paying for your water.
Who will you be paying for your water? Most likely a company called Celtic
Anglian Water. As mentioned above, they are a joint venture between NTR
and Anglian Water.
According to CAW's website ...
"Celtic Anglian Water (CAW) was established in 1998 to participate in the

development of Ireland's water and wastewater infrastructure. CAW is a
50/50 joint venture between Celtic Utilities Limited and Anglian Water
(Ireland) Ltd. a wholly owned subsidiary of awg plc (formally known as
Anglian Water Plc)."
The important information contained on another page in their website tells
us that they were
"established to participate in the Government's Capital investment

Programme for Water and Sewerage Services"
http://www.caw.ie/
Back in 2001, NTR acquired the majority shareholding in Celtic Utilities Ltd.
http://www.rte.ie/business/2001/0815/ntr.html
thereby becoming AW's new partner and a 50% stakeholder in CAW.
The Indo's business section has this advice for would be investors... "Well,
although Ireland is unique amongst EU countries in that it doesn't charge
consumers for domestic water, NTR does have a long-term play through
Celtic Anglian Water, its partnership with Anglian Water.
It runs the massive Ringsend Treatment plant on a 20-year contract and,

although such a deal is a mere foothold in an embryonic market, it's
another reason to snap up NTR shares while you still can.
Stock in the UK water utilities is like hen's teeth at the moment, with a
number of them the subject of bidding wars.
Water may forever be free in this fair isle, but if it ever becomes metered, I
know which company will be in with a fair chance of doing the billing."
http://www.unison.ie/business/stories.php3?ca=80&si=1700226
If it ever becomes metered....?
According to the Water Framework Directive Pricing Policies have to be in

place by 2010. Article 9, entitled Recovery of costs for water services,
reads as follows...
1. Member states shall take account of the principle of recovery of the

costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs,
having regard to the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III,
and in accordance in particular with the polluter pays principle.
Member states shall ensure that by 2010
- that water pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users to use
water resources efficiently, and thereby contribute to the environmental
objectives of this Directive,
- an adequate contribution to the different water uses, disaggregated into at

least industry, households and agriculture, to the recovery of the costs of
water services, based on the economic analysis conducted according to
Annex III and taking account of the polluter pays principle.
Member states may in so doing have regard to the social, environmental

and economic effects of the recovery as well as the geographic and
climatic conditions of the region or regions affected.
Annex III, called simply Economic Analysis contains the following...
The economic analysis shall contain enough information in sufficient detail

(taking account of the costs associated with collection of the relevant data)
in order to:
(a) make the relevant calculations necessary for taking into account under
Article 9 the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, taking
account of long term forecasts of supply and demand for water in the river
basin district and, where necessary:
- estimates of the volume, prices and costs associated with water services,
and
- estimates of relevant investment including forecasts of such investments;
(b) make judgements about the most cost-effective combination of

measures in respect of water uses to be included in the programme of
measures under Article 11 based on estimates of the potential costs of
such measures.
http://www.wfdireland.ie/
The government is currently testing the waters of public reaction to the

outrage of water privatisation. The ESRI (The Economic and Social
Research Institute), in the last few days have recommended that water
charges be introduced.
They've coupled this alongside such ideas as reducing spending on health

care. The government may conveniently be forced to choose between the
lesser of two evils.
At the EGM of National Toll Roads (NTR) today,
shareholders approved the acquisition of a
76.9% stake in Celtic Utilities Ltd.
NTR, which has the rights to the East Link and
West Link toll bridges in Dublin, bought the
77% stake in Celtic Utilities from entrepreneur
John Gallagher, who will join the board of NTR
as a non-executive director.
Celtic Utilities is an environmental company
specializing in water and waste water and is
valued at about 62 million euro, and the
acquisition is subject to the final approval of
Enterprise, Trade & Employment Minister Mary
Harney.
Jim Barry, NTR's chief executive said the
purchase was 'very significant' and would
'consolidate our position as the leading
developer of public enterprise in Ireland'.
Mr Barry said that it would continue the
transformation of NTR into a broad based
developer and operator of infrastructure in
Ireland. He said: 'NTR will now hold leading
positions in the roads, waste management,
energy and water/wastewater sectors in
Ireland.'
ICC Equity Partners will retain the remaining
stake in the company. The stake will be paid
for with shares in NTR as well as a loan note of
38 million euro and cash of one million euro.
NTR already has a waste management joint
venture with Celtic Utilities called Celtic Waste.
Water privatization is on the way

Ireland: Commission sends final warning over four breaches
of environmental law; closes two cases
The European Commission is sending a final warning to
Ireland over four cases where it has failed to comply with
European Court of Justice rulings concerning illegal
development and developments that may harm the natural
and man-made heritage of the countryside, access to the
Irish courts and protection of marine mammals. If the
necessary steps are not taken, the Commission could refer
the cases back to the Court and ask for fines to be imposed.
Following action by the Irish authorities, the Commission is
also closing two long-standing cases on drinking water
supplies and shell-fish growing areas, shelving earlier
proposed fines for the latter.
EU Environment Commissioner Janez Potonik said: "I am pleased
to see that Ireland has taken the necessary measures to enable the
Commission to close two long-running cases. I would now urge the
Irish authorities to renew their efforts to satisfy other important
court rulings."
Final warning in two environmental impact assessment cases
The first case refers to a Court ruling in July 2008 concerning
Ireland's failure to ensure that work on projects that might require
an environmental impact assessment (EIA) does not start before
the necessary checks or studies are carried out. The Court found
that Ireland's use of a system of retention permission to
retrospectively approve such work was contrary to the EIA
Directive. The Court also found that there had been a failure to
undertake a proper prior impact assessment of a wind farm at
Derrybrien, County Galway, which caused a major peat slide. No
legislation has been adopted to address the issue of retrospective
permission identified in the judgment. In the Derrybrien case, the
Irish authorities agreed to undertake an EIA to look in detail at
further potential issues, however, to date none has been made due
to delays in proposed new legislation.
The second case relates to a Court ruling in November 2008 which
found that the thresholds for undertaking an environmental impact
assessment for certain types of projects, including the restructuring
of rural landholdings and water management projects for irrigation
or land drainage, were too high. This led to loss of wetlands and
other habitats and destruction of archaeological remains without
any EIAs ever being required. No legislation has been adopted to
address the issue.
Access to justice
On July 2009 the Court ruled that Ireland had failed to transpose
into national law changes to the Environmental Impact Assessment
Directive, including provisions on public participation in the
decision-making process and access to justice. The Court found that
Irish legislation failed to explicitly require that information on review
procedures should be made available to the public and that access
to the Irish courts should not be prohibitively expensive for citizens
and NGOs. Ireland set out several measures it proposed to take to
meet these shortcomings, however, the Commission is not aware
that any of these have been put in place.
Nature case
In January 2007 the Court ruled that Ireland had failed to take the
necessary steps to adequately safeguard certain strictly protected
species, including marine mammals (whales, dolphins and
porpoises) and bats. These species represent some of Ireland's
most important indigenous wildlife. Ireland agreed to put in place
plans to monitor and protect these species. Although plans are in
place for bat species, those for marine mammals have yet to be
satisfactorily concluded.
In all four cases, the Commission is sending Ireland a first written
warning under Article 260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union. If Ireland does not take the necessary steps, the
Commission could refer the cases back to the Court, with the
possibility of fines.
Closure of two long-running cases
The Commission is closing two long-standing cases following action
by the Irish authorities.
In November 2002, the Court found that there were chronic
problems of microbiological contamination of hundreds of Irish
private and public water supplies despite EU rules stipulating that
drinking water should be kept bacteria-free. Ireland adopted an
array of measures in response, tightening legislation and increasing
enforcement powers. Several hundred million euros were invested
in upgrading drinking water supplies and installing chlorine monitors
and alarms. The Commission is now closing the case. Issues of
source protection from deficient septic tanks are being addressed
separately.
The second case concerns measures needed to ensure quality
standards for shellfish waters on the Irish coast, following a
judgment from the Court in June 2007. In October 2009, the
Commission proposed to refer this case back to Court, with the
imposition of fines if the Irish authorities did not comply with the
judgment within three months (see IP/09/1647). The authorities
subsequently took the necessary measures, designating the
remaining shellfish water site at Rostellan, Cork, and establishing
pollution reduction programmes for all designated areas. As a
result, the Commission is now closing the case.
Legal Process
The Commission has the power to take legal action against a
Member State that is not respecting its obligations under
Community law, under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union. The infringement procedure begins with a
first written warning ("Letter of Formal Notice") to the Member
State concerned, which must be answered within two months. If the
Commission is not satisfied with the reply, this first letter may be
followed by a final written warning ("Reasoned Opinion") clearly
explaining the infringement, and calling on the Member State to
comply within a specified period, usually two months.
A failure to act on the final written warning can result in a summons
to the Court of Justice. If the Court rules against the Member State,
it must then take the necessary measures to comply with the
judgment. If, despite the ruling, a Member State still fails to act, a
further round of the infringement process begins under Article 260
of the Treaty, this time with only one written warning. This second
round can ultimately result in financial penalties for the Member
State concerned.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-
313_en.htm
FREE WATER IN IRELAND BUT
ONLY IF YOURE A CORPORATION
So we know how much Irish Water wanted us to pay for our water
last year. We know about the enormous movement that has
emerged leading to major concessions and reduced capped
charges until 2018, when we will inevitably experience a dramatic
increase in prices again. We also know about the money we have
already paid through progressive general taxation for decades and
how our water usage is now to be metered in an alleged
conservation measure (which is really a privatisation measure).
And we are told that all profits will be used to rebuild and provide
vital investment for our water infrastructure. This message is often
accompanied by haughty tut tutting about how we as a nation are
a shower (pardon the pun) of water wastrels who spend our lives
washing our many cars, watering our acres of gardens and filling
our swimming pools.
So thats how Irish Water and its commentariat in our media treats
the tax paying public that it wants to have for customers. The
people who need water to drink, to prepare and cook food with, to
wash and dispose of human and other waste. The necessary
business of living. They dont even want us processing our own
rainwater without charging us for that too.
This got us wondering, given that water is a precious natural
resource, and we all own it, even if it has to be processed, how do
Irish Water and our state administration treat the corporations who
use our water, our wells, our springs? Not those who need it for
actual life, but those who want it for pure profit driven motives.
After all, wouldnt we all feel just a tad better about the great water
war being waged on us knowing that at least Corporate Ireland is
paying its fair share?
So we asked, or at least James Moore asked. James is an activist,
campaigner, a trade union member and a workplace
representative, and he cares about water. James used the FOI Act
to ask questions about some pretty big companies. He asked
about Ballygowan. Heard of them? Yes, thought so. They are BIG!
Glenpatrick Spring in Tipperary. Tipperary Spring Water and Kerry
spring from the Kingdom itself are also companies of interest.
In preparation, this week we asked some water activists two
questions. What are the costs for water extraction per cubic metre
and what would the limits on that extraction be for these very
successful and highly profitable companies? Of course cynicism
reigned. Almost 100 years of cronyism and gombeenism sucking
money from poor and middle income families to give to the rich
have left people increasingly cynical. So most people thought
about it and opined that in gombeen Ireland, the tax haven and
best small country in the world to do business (but one of the
worst to be an active citizen expecting high standards in public
services and social protection) the amounts netted would be small
and the extraction limits very high.
They were wrong.
The water charges werent low. They were zero.
The extraction limits werent high. They do not exist at all. There is
no limit.
As the documents attached show (all but James address has been
left intact) there is no evidence that any of these companies have
paid a single cent into our exchequer for the extraction, bottling
and selling for profit of our natural resources. OUR natural water.
Moreover there is no evidence that there is ANY cap or limit to the
amount of OUR natural water that these private companies can
take for profit.
Who elected the politicians, local or national, that allowed this to
happen?
Who are these people who decided to charge us twice for
something we already own, our public water and system, but to
give our naturally occurring spring water away for nothing? And
then they have the audacity to tell us we need to pay again for
water because it costs so much to process, when there are literally
millions of litres of perfectly good water being extracted for profit.
Ballygowan Water is owned by Britvic which is a company
registered on the London Stock Exchange and have recorded
profits of 90.68m for last year.
In defending our Right2Water the affiliated Trade Unions
sponsored a public consultation process which has developed,
ground up, 10 policy principles to reshape how Ireland is run and
for whom it benefits. We want to see an economy working for our
people, not the other way around. We want to see vindication of
our Right2Water, or Right2Democratic Reform and our
Right2Natural Resources. In short we want to vindicate our
Right2Change Ireland. We, and we believe the people of Ireland,
have had enough, we deserve much better and we are demanding
that change.
Come to one of our local meetings and have your say. Find out
more on www.right2change.ie.
ROADSHOW WEEK ONE
21 September 7:30pm, Red Cow Inn, Naas Rd, Dublin 22
21 September 7:30pm, Clarion Hotel, Limerick
22 September 7:30pm, Brandon Hotel, Tralee, Co. Kerry
22 September 7:30pm, Hilton Hotel, Northern Cross, Dublin 17
22 September 7:30pm, Clarion Hotel, Sligo
23 September 7:30pm, St Gerard's Hall, Dundalk, Co. Louth
23 September 7:30pm, Radisson Hotel, Letterkenny, Donegal
The policy areas identified include:
9 Right2Water;
9 Right2Democratic Reform;
9 Right2Jobs and Decent Work;
9 Right2Health;
9 Right2Housing;
9 Right2Education;
9 Right2Debt Justice;
9 Right2Equality;
9 Right2National Resources;
Right2Sustainable Environment.
It could lead to major

problems with Fianna
Fil
The minister responsible for water
charges says he won't introduce ANY
scheme which doesn't charge people
for wasteful usage.
Simon Coveney's position puts the
government on a major collision
course with Fianna Fil.
The two parties had agreed to
implement the findings of an
Oireachtas committee, which
appears... set to call for no domestic
charges at all.
But Simon Coveney says THAT
regime would be illegal under EU law
- and there's no way he can
implement it:
Just put an end to the metering now and we might settle

for that Simon because its not over till its gone completly
and that includes the meters because the people will not
settle for anything less. IF YOU HAVE A METER IN GET IT
OUT ASAP.
Breaking News
Minister Simon Coveney has just anounced water Charges are
Abolised and will be paid by general Taxation.
Today is a victory to all who took to the streets and stood up to the
government on Water charges well done to all water charges
warriors!
European Court rules

against vehicle registration
tax
Thu, Sep 19, 2002, 01:00
Eanna O Caollai
The future imposition of Vehicle Registration Tax (VRT)
in Ireland may be called into question following a
European Court of Justice ruling which found it
constituted a form of double taxation and was therefore
illegal under the European Union Treaty.
The Court found the taxable value used to apply the tax
on the registration of second-hand imported vehicles
must be defined in the same way as for new vehicles
already registered in the national territory.
VRT must be paid on all motor vehicles on their
registration and before they are used in the Republic of
Ireland.
The European Court of Justice ruled today on the case of
a Finnish national who took his government to task over
payment of the tax on a second-hand vehicle he alleged
was a form of double taxation.
It found the government ignored tax already paid on
vehicles registered in a second country.
The judgment in the case taken by Mr Antti Siilin said:
"The taxable value used to apply the tax on the
registration of vehicles must be defined in the same way
for imported used cars as for new vehicles registered in
the national territory."
Mr Siilin brought the case after the Mercedes he
imported into Finland from Germany was subjected to a
value added tax calculated by comparing the difference
between the price paid for the car and the cost of the car
in Finland. A similar system operates in Ireland.
Today's ruling was welcomed by the European
Commission which called for the abolition of VRT two
weeks ago saying it was a barrier to trade.
Earlier this month, EU taxation commissioner Mr Frits
Bolkestein unveiled a plan to phase out car registration
tax in EU member states over five to 10 years with the
aim of freeing up the movement of cars across Europe.
Under the proposal, Mr Bolkestein said registration tax,
which citizens in 10 of the 15 EU countries have to pay
on new cars, should be replaced by annual road tax and
fuel tax.
"I am determined to tackle the tax obstacles individual
citizens and car manufacturers face within the internal
market arising from 15 different systems of car taxation
within the EU," Mr Bolkestein said.
"All too often people have to pay through the nose when
they move a car from one country to another," he said.
The proposal also called on member states to bring their
annual road taxes closer together, and said registration
tax, while it lasts, and road tax should be based on CO2
emissions.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/euro
pean-court-rules-against-vehicle-
registration-tax-1.437439
Petition to EU 1357/2010 by Ryan

Stewart (Irish), on behalf of Abolish
VRT ... company cars, the Court of
Justice has established that it is
contrary to ... of private vehicles the
Member State of residence is under
current EU
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2
014/documents/peti/cm/943/943020/943020en.p
df
IRELAND Accompanying the document
Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions The EU Environmental
Implementation Review 3 march 2017
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:52017SC0060&from=EN
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ROAD TRANSPORT) (WORKING CONDITIONS
AND ROAD SAFETY) REGULATIONS 2008
vehicles registered in the ... Transport officer to apply to District Court

for a search warrant in cer- ... Power to order driver to take rest or
break ... Application of fees paid under these Regulations ... ferred on
me by section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2008/si/62/ma
de/en/pdf
This morning's headlines :-) :-)

Irish Times "FG and FF refuse to rule out election over
water charges"
Irish Independant "Varadkar rows in behind leadership
rival in rejecting FF call to scrap water bills"
Irish Examiner "Warning of backdated 20k a day fine if
water charges scrapped
There should be no discussions with any water
commission ,Fine Gael ,Fianna Fail, Labour ,Green Party ,or
anybody that agrees with water re-charging , When you
have a discussion /talks what is expected is that you give
a inch here a inch there ,With politicians spinning some of
your words to show you agree with their policies .Not a
inch means not a cent ,not "Generous Allowances " on
water .Not that Irish Water continue as a super -quango
.with assets paid for by the Irish People ,Not a inch, not a
cent and a disbandment of Irish Water ,anything else is a
sellout
We take the established practice of knowing that Water is the most
Valuable Asset any Country can have. It does fall out of the sky. In
spite of FG thinking it belongs to them. It is Not for sale or for lease.
It is not for fining us for owning it and keeping it.. ours for keeping.
Paying a levy on Car Tax. Paying a levy on VAT. Not our fault if FG or
FF don't put the money into infrastructure or upgrading. Not our
fault that they put millions and billions into a semi private Company
to privatise and sell something they don't own and will never own.
Not our fault they put millions into a scam and DOB s faulty Meters.
Not our fault they had no interest in fixing leaks or raw sewerage.
Just tearing up roads and paths, putting dangerous Meters on
people's water pipes, treating citizens like Criminals when they
objected. They are finished. No to all of it
Together we Stand or Divided we Fall.
I really hoped that this 24/48 hour Protest Event on March
8th would have gained backing and Support a lot more
than it is - i set this up after seeing on other Groups and
Pages Posts going up about what their doing or have done
in the likes of Romania, France and around the World and
comments saying that we should be doing that in Ireland,
we need to get them out. This Event is and still can be the
best opportunity in doing that, we all might be waiting to
see what happens with Kenny's Leadership within FG, will
he,won't he go? - If he doesnt we're back to square one ,
Why wait?, We should all be gathering in our thousands
outside the Dail and Screaming for All their Resignations
and staying there until they do so.
This is also a chance for All 'Austerity related' groups,
pages and grassroot movements to get together on this
Event and Support it and Together we can Achieve, it
shouldnt matter if it doesnt have the backing from
PBP/AAA or any of the 'Real independents', it shouldnt
matter if Unions aren't backing it, yes they would help but
the only thing that should matter is that You the People
Back it, dont wait for someone else to back it, do it for
yourself, your family, your grand children and the future
Generations, do it while we still have something left, do it
before its too Late, If i have to Stand Alone i will but
Together we are Better. Its your choice guys, Help Make a
Stand now before its too Late, Kenny seems to have a
problem making decisions, lets get together on the 8th
March and help him make that decision quicker.
Have we not all seen enough yet? Whistleblowers like
Maurice Mc Cabe, John Wilson and many more and their
families being harrassed, Homeless Epidemic, Housing
Crisis, Hospital Crisis, Waiting Lists, Sick children and
Adults losing Medical Cards who actually need them,
Struggling to make Orkambi and Medical Cannabis
available for those who need it, Elder Abuse, Garda
Corruption the Vulture Funds, NAMA, Illegal Evictions,
Wages, Measily 5 extra to Pensioners while giving
themselves 2,000+ pay rise, the rising insurance costs,
Water Quango Continuing, all the Public Sector Strikes
happening the list of wrong doing in this Country is
endless. But we all know whats wrong and only we have
the Power to stop this and the Time is NOW.
The Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC(1), Article 9.4, indicates
that a Member State will not be in breach of the directive for non-
implementation of the provision of 9.1, second sentence, on water-
pricing policies where this does not compromise the purposes and
the achievement of this directive.
You heard of an Eurosceptic - Simon Coveney is

Euroselective
So the FG led minority government sets up a commission
of inquiry into Irish Water and the viability of water
charges and say they'll abide by it's findings, the
commission have recommended the scrapping of charges
and the metering program and refunds for anyone who
has already paid.
Now Simon Coveney is saying that he is not in favor of this
as it would be in breach of EU law.
So in other words, they spent millions of taxpayers money
on a commission of inquiry knowing full well that no
matter what the outcome they were going to ignore it
anyway.With the current housing crisis and record no.s
homeless, the health service in tatters and denying the
nation of 13 billion in unpaid taxes owed and still they
throw all OUR taxes into Irish Water when we've clearly
said NO.Has it ever been more obvious that the
government are there to serve the elite and their puppet
masters in Germany? Short answer NO!If FF don't bring
down this dictatorship then it's up to US.Time to polish the
boots and take to the streets again,Thoughts..
Coveny is lying regarding EU Regulation, and even if it were true, we
are are not as domestic users considered polluters, coveny is hiding
behind the legislation which Kelly the Labour lacky should have
renewed Ireland's waver on this EU legislation, regarding water
charges, but the same coveny has no problem paying fines because
of the illegal,under EU REGULATION, VRT TAX THOUGH.
EXTRACT ""Everyone knows that when a job becomes
vacant it is not really vacant, for it is already destined for
some favourite candidate somewhere, a candidate who
has shownthe requisite degree of slavish obedience and
an unthinking determination to follow orders without
question.
These therefore are the primary attributes which Garda
management value in a candidate.
Those who are prepared to demonstrate servility without
question (code for keeping the lower ranks in line) flourish
accordingly.
Those who are not wither on the vine. Nevertheless, when
a vacancy arises the weary ruse must be carried through
and sham interviews must be conducted to fulfil civil
service legal requirements that a position be advertised to
all, lest some upstart institute High Court proceedings""
the enemy,
blame, When you are Voting Remember these Above
Named Politicians, we need rid of the rotten apples sitting
in the Dial, Replacing them with new fresh honest decent
politicians, out with the old and in with the new,Perhaps
Next Time, we will all stand against Our Corrupt
Government, Perhaps the next Time, Well all prevent the
Privatization of our People,Perhaps Next Time, we will all
stand side by side with our peaceful protesters, Perhaps
for all of us this shit aint over yet.
It is debatable that those who paid were coerced, and placed under
duress by this government.
All The Major Political Parties Betrayed Us! Abolish Them Forever!
Populist politics, politicians listening to what the people want, how
disgusting (NOT).
Many who paid, especially those who paid the first round, did so out
of fear & disinformation. Next step is to enshrine in the constitution
that Irish Water is and shall remain the property of the Irish People
Although it's not over.Today is a huge milestone, we stood together
against the full might of a corrupt gang who controlled the Gardai,
judiciary & most media. They vilified us, they criminalised us but
with the knowledge that we were justified & our combined strength
we prevailed. BRAVO!!
nd that why our Government approved drawing water from the
Shannon they say it for Dublin but don't it rain In Dublin as well as
down the west also there could be water tankers wating in Dublin
Wateing at the other side of the Docks to export our Shannon water
I can see it happing as our Government will sell there soles and all of
its people water for 30 pieces of silver.
\
All this fake concern about 'excessive usage' of water
because of swimming pools is simply to blind you from the
truth.
The Minister has confirmed that he has no idea about how

many swimming pools there are in Ireland. If he had real
concerns, maybe he would've asked about it from his own
department? Or maybe the mainstream media who share
concerns about swimming pools would follow up on their
concerns with the Minister too?
If the Govt scraps water charges by applying the Irish Domestic
Water 9.4 Exemption ( accepted practice ) it will be up to the
European Commission to decide if they will formally complain the
Govt to the European Court of Justice ( this process could take a
number of years ).If the ECJ finds Ireland guilty ( and this is by no
means guaranteed ) and insists they apply charges they will give
the Govt ample time to make changes and no fines in the mean
time. This is pure scaremongering by Fine Gael.......The history of
the 9.4 Exemption is an interesting one. John Gormley of the Green
Party, while in Govt with FF and as Min for the Env. "done away" with
the 9.4 exemption and it was replaced by the Water Services act
2013/14. FF's hands are anything but clean on this issue and
wringing their hands as if they know nothing is a disingenuous
Water will never run out, it doesn't leave the planet, nature recycles
water all the time, unlike coal , gas , & oil, it will never run out. This
water conservation scheme is a blinder, to make you believe must
conserve water, so the big companies can come in & charge you for
usage, eg, if you have a swimming pool you pay more, or if you
have more sewage you pay more, so where does our tax money go,
in the past it was used to pay for these services & more, so what's
happened to it now, is it used to pay for politicians inflated salaries
& pensions nowadays or what.?
You couldn't use excessive water in Ireland if you tried! Put the
meters on houses with swimming pools and that will be problem
sorted...
wo points.... 1. Can it be proven beyond doubt that District Metering
can identify individual excessive usage thus doing away with the
need for individual meters and by extension Privatisation. 2. Is it
possible to compare the costs involved using this method ( District
Metering ) as against the cost of blanket individual metering as
proposed by FG . If Diistrict Metering can do the job at a fraction of
the cost of individual metering then by pure economic argument
alone Fine Gael and Coveney are completely up the Swanee.
Be WARNED
There is going to be an awful lot of talk about swimming pools in the
coming days. As if every second house had one. ;)
Stick billions of euro worth of water meters outside every home in
the country and then tell the sheep it's the only way they will be
able to make the guy with the swimming pool pay for using more
water than them. It might seem like a fairly harebrained idea but it's
what they seem to be going with for now. You would imagine it's a
fairly easy argument to rebut for any anti-water charge character
that appears in the media but whenever the issue of overuse is
brought up, none of them have pointed out the bleeding obvious.
We don't live in a desert feckin climate! We could be exporting
water and should be trying to get rid of the stuff instead of
conserving it. Before any environmentalists jump on my back, don't
worry, when water leaks from pipes etc. the only place it goes is
straight back into the water cycle. Remember Martin Conway stated
that water "doesn't just fall out of the sky"? I reckon a fair chunk of
the population had to look up and do a double take. They really do
take the public for fools and why wouldn't they? If water charges are
abolished it will be FF who benefits politically, the party who had
planned charging for water in the first place. (before the bailout...)
The real facts are that there is no excessive usage of

water in Ireland. We use 25% less water than the UK,
where they've had meters in place since 1989. We use
35% less than Germans. And we have four times more
water available to us than the French and 50 times more
available to us than Israel. Heaven forbid that a natural
resource in Ireland would be used to benefit the Irish
people!
A little boy goes to see his dad and says, "Dad, I have to do a
special report for school. Can I ask you a question?"
His father replies, "Sure, son. What's the question?"
The little boy says, "What is politics?"
"Well son, let's take our home for example. I am the wage earner, so
let's call me 'Enda Kenny.' Your mother is the administrator of
money, so we'll call her 'Joan Burton.' We take care of your needs, so
we'll call you 'The People.' We'll call the maid 'The Working Class,'
and your baby brother we can call 'The Future.' Do you understand,
son?
"I'm not really sure, Dad. I'll have to think about it."
That night, awakened by his baby brother's crying, the boy went to
see what was wrong. Discovering that the baby had seriously soiled
his nappy, the boy went to his parents' room and found his mother
sound asleep. He went to the maid's room where, peeking through
the keyhole, he saw his father in bed with the maid. The boy's
knocking went totally unheeded by his father and the maid, so the
boy returned to his room and went back to sleep. The next morning
he reported to his father.
"Dad, now I think I understand what politics is."
"Good, son! Can you explain it to me in your own words?"
"Well, dad, while Enda Kenny is screwing the Working Class, Joan
Burton is sound asleep, the People are being completely ignored and
the Future is full of shit.
Why is Coveney so determined to charge people for

"excessive usage" of water? Because it's yet another
attempt by the Blueshirts to get a foot in the "charging for
water" door. Once the principle of charging for excessive
usage is adopted it is easy to change the definition of
what is "excessive" at any time in the future. Coveney's
plan/scam would see MOST people paying water charges
in a few short years.
However the Bilderberg man also has another agenda. It is

obvious that Coveney and his advisers have met Denis
O'Brien (or his top advisers) and that O'Brien has promised
to back Coveney for the Fine Gael leadership/Taoiseach IF
Coveney can deliver the outstanding water metering
contracts to the tax evader. Already O'Brien's Independent
News & Media have put their weight behind the Cork man
with colour photo's of Coveney and his family plastered
over the Independent on four consecutive days. O'Brien is
delivering on his promises.
But can Coveney deliver the contracts the greedy tax
evader craves?
NO WATER REFUND ---- NO WATER REFUND
Mr Gibney concluded, Right2Water does not believe that
a charge for excessive water usage on domestic
households makes sense. The real waste is in the 41
percent of water that is leaked before it gets to your tap
of which only 3 percent is on the household side.
Yet, instead of investing in upgrading the infrastructure
and fixing the leaks, some political parties are persistent
in pursuing a fictional line about Irish families wasting
water despite their own expert commission saying, The
expert commission has not seen any evidence that Ireland
has particularly high levels of domestic water usage, and
indeed, Irish people are at the lower end of the spectrum
when it comes to comparing water usage to other
European countries.'
HOME SWEET HOME ACCOUNT DETAILS
The Irish Times have just published this important piece
on the Home Sweet Home finances. It will be carried in
that paper tomorrow also.
Also tomorrow morning an amazing amount of details
about donations will be published on the HSH website and
social media platforms.
Actual donors can contact HSH directly if they have any
queries and can provide proof of donation.
Congratulations to all at IHN who have worked so hard
behind the scenes on a volunteer basis in recent weeks to
put such comprehensive information into the public
domain. They are modern day heroes who deserve a lot
better than the mischievous smear tactics some have
endeavoured to attack them with for their own agendas.
Here is the full statement issued to the Irish Times with
the complete accounts:
Government beaten in vote over future of

water services
01/02/2017
The Government has been beaten in the first vote held by the
Committee that will decide the future of water services.
Fine Gael was beaten in a vote on whether to hear evidence
from the Right2Water group.
But opposition TDs grouped together and ensured that the
witnesses will be heard next Tuesday, in a 12-6 vote.
The vote provides the first indication of the minority
Government's weakened position on the committee.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/government-beaten-in-
vote-over-future-of-water-services-775069.html
Ok folks it's that time again , one of our own , who along
with our group was the first community group to stop the
water meters with the residents of Ashbrook Togher , John
has been involved ever since , there is a not a spot in this
city or county where water meters have been successfully
stopped where John has not played a part . He needs your
support now . Come along and watch your tax money
been wasted again , Even tho the metering program is to
be stopped the men and women who dared stand up
to the system must be made examples of
Solidarity from Dublin...good luck

Look at this nonsense
HOME SWEET HOME BLOWN AWAY BY DONOR SUPPORT
The Home Sweet Home campaign of volunteers, Artists
and Trade Unionists has published it's accounts to date.
The publication reveals that the campaign raised well over
twice the monies (189,000) has needed to date and that
a large proportion of expenditure arose from the hiring of
professional security for the Apollo House occupation. This
was in light of undertakings necessary to secure a stay on
an evacuation order issued by the High Court on 21
December 2016.
Oisin Fagan of the Irish Housing Network who ran the 'Go
Fund Me' account stated:
'Thanks to these donations and public support Home
Sweet Home provided a wonderful Christmas and New
Year for people who had previously slept on the streets
and also secured 6 month, 24 hour beds for over 90 of our
most vulnerable. As volunteers we have worked hard to
help where the state continues to fail and we hope donors
with genuine questions or concerns will contact us directly
through HSH.'
Spokesperson Brendan Ogle added:
'as Trade Unionists we with the Artists watched in awe as
the public and volunteers have joined to build a people
powered initiative that has shone a necessary light on our
housing emergency, Government failures and the enforced
limitations on existing charitable structures. No volunteer,
Trade Unionist or Artist gets paid anything from Home
Sweet Home. The campaign has no 'CEO' or Ministerial
salaries to bear.
Home Sweet Home has already announced it will be a
'permanent feature in the nation's housing debate' and so
a Conference - HOME SWEET HOME THE NEXT STEPS - will
take place on 18 February 2017 and formalised structures
will be put in place.
The statement concluded with Mick (mattress) Flynn who
donated much of the bedding for Apollo House stating :
'As one of the first of what turned out to be many business
people to support this necessary intervention, I am thrilled
with the transformative effect it has had on so many lives
and I look forward to working with Home Sweet Home in
now pushing the campaign to the next level'.
ENDS
Remember this from May 2016??

""His tenure as Environment Minister ends this week - but
a 1.7m-a-year water quango could be Alan Kelly's
"parting gift" to Tipperary voter""
Alan Kelly sets up water quango in home county

His tenure as Environment Minister ends this week - but a 1.7m-a-
year water quango could be Alan Kelly's "parting gift" to Tipperary
voters.
INDEPENDENT.IE
Deirdre Reynolds
May 2 2016
His tenure as Environment Minister ends
this week - but a 1.7m-a-year water quango
could be Alan Kelly's "parting gift" to
Tipperary voters.
A new Local Authorities Water and Communities Office
(LAWCO) has been established in the Labour TD's home
county.
Unrelated to Irish Water, the body will promote awareness
of the need to improve the quality of Ireland's waterways.
Four staff members are believed to be based at the
LAWCO's Clonmel headquarters.
The Department of the Environment insisted that the
selection process, which was conducted by a four-person
board, was "entirely independent". But the acting minister
has nonetheless faced accusations of quango-ism over the
location of the body's main office.
Mr Kelly was unavailable for comment last night.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/alan-kelly-sets-up-
water-quango-in-home-county-34676657.html
Households are still being paid the 100

Water Conservation Grant, the Dil's Public
Accounts Committee (PAC) has been told.
Water charges are suspended and their future is at the
centre of an ongoing row between Fine Gael and Fianna
Fil that it's feared could lead to an election.
But today TDs heard that the 100 grant payments
continue to be made to householders who have an
entitlement dating back to 2015.
The grant, introduced that year, offset a chunk of the cost
of water charges.
John McCarthy, the secretary general of the Housing
Department - which also has responsibility for water - told
the PAC that water programme expenditure in 2015
included 94 for the Water Conservation Grant.
He said that as of June 20, 2015 the 1.308m households
registered with Irish Water were eligible for the 2015
grant, which is administered by the Department of Social
Protection.
That Department made payments totalling just over 89m
to 890,104 applications by households.
Mr McCarthy added: "A small number of residual
payments continue to be made to householders who have
an entitlement to the 2015 Water Conservation Grant."
Water charges were suspended under the confidence and
supply agreement between Fine Gael and Fianna Fil.
A recommendation by an Expert Committee that charges
should apply for wasteful or excessive use of water is
currently the subject of a row between the two partys at
the Oireachtas water committee.
Fianna Fail want charges scrapped outright, while Fine
Gael argues that a polluter pays principle must remain in
order to comply with EU law and avoid fines to the State.
Add in fluoridation, we are the only country in Europe to
fluoridate our entire public water supply. Pumping
industrial waste fluoride into drinking water, aka
fluoridation, is banned in Germany and most of Europe on
ethical and/or medical grounds. Fluoride is a biocide, it
kills life, hence it's widespread use in pesticides and
herbicides, it is BAD for teeth as evidenced in fluorosis,
and every aspect of health. Obviously our government /
HSE know better. If you question them, you are a
conspiracy theorist, all you can get from them is their
mantra "Water fluoridation continues to benefit the oral
health of the nation.".
DO WATER METERS REDUCE
DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION?
March 1, 2017
This 2010 study written by Dr Chad Staddon, University of the
West of England, Bristol, England, asking whether water
metering reduces domestic water consumption is a very apt
topic in light of today's 10/10 split decision of the Oireachtas
Select Committee on the Funding of Domestic Water
Services.
In what was a controversial and heated conclusion meeting,
the Oireachtas Committee failed to reach agreement. On the
one side those favouring charges for excessive use which by
the way would necessitate metering, were 6 Fine Gael
members along with Noel Grealish, Ind, Jan O'Sullivan, Lab,
Grace O'Sullivan, GP, and Chairman Pdraig O Cidigh. On
the other side voting to abolish water charges and metering
were 5 Fianna Fil, 2 Sinn Fin members along with Paul
Murphy, AAA-PBP, Thomas Pringle, Ind, and Seamus Healy,
WUAG.
Earlier in the day, prior to what was supposed to be a final
meeting of the Oireachtas Committee, Simon Coveney,
Housing Minister, made a statement saying that he would not
introduce legislation to permanently end charges citing EU
'severe fines' and advice from the Attorney General. The
minister's statement angered opposition political parties
opposed to water charges and metering. Fianna Fil claimed
that Mr Coveney was breaking a'confidence and supply'
arrangement which ensures the minority Government's
survival. According to RTE News both Fianna Fil and Fine
Gael are to table position papers by Friday and the Oireachtas
Committee will meet again next Tuesday.
DO WATER METERS REDUCE DOMESTIC
CONSUMPTION?: A SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE
LITERATURE
Dr Chad Staddon
Study's Abstract
"At the present time 30% of UK households nationwide are on
water meters and household consumption stands at approximately
150 litres/person/day (lpd), slightly more than Western European
averages, but significantly less than North American or even
Australian levels. Largely out of concern for the long-term effects
of climate change on water supply, but also out of the notion that
metering is the fairest way to pay, the UK government is currently
trying to build a consensus around the idea of legislating
compulsory metering for the nations 28 million households.
However, there is much confusion as to the actual objectives to be
served by such a policy, estimated to cost in excess of 3 billion.
This paper presents the best available current research on water
metering around the world, with a special emphasis on European,
North American and Commonwealth comparator nations. In
summary, the research suggests that there is little evidence that
compulsory universal metering can achieve either the water
conservation or social equity goals articulated by the government.
The author concludes that policymakers need to think much more
carefully about metering technologies and the purposes they are
intended to serve."
http://www.heednet.info/metering-defraHEEDnet.pdf
EU to take action over

States dangerous drinking
water
Republic faces infringement proceedings due to the
presence of chemicals in its supply
Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 01:00
Sarah Bardon
THMs are carcinogenic chemicals formed when chlorine is added to purify

water. Photograph: Getty Images/iStockphoto
The European Commission will take infringement
proceedings against Ireland due to dangerous levels of
chemicals found in drinking water.
The commission wrote to the Department of Housing
this month confirming that a pilot case it had initiated
into the level of trihalomethanes (THMs) in the water
system has been closed.
In the correspondence, it confirmed that further
treatment would now be necessary to deal with the
chemicals, which have been linked to cancer.
A spokesman said the commission would now move to
take more formal steps in response to ongoing
concerns.
Sources confirmed that infringement proceedings would
begin within a matter of weeks.
Ireland will be given the opportunity to respond to the
action. If its response is inadequate, the commission can
take the case to the European Court of Justice, whose
judgment is binding.
Significant daily penalties could be imposed by the court
if Ireland does not act appropriately.
THMs are chemicals that have been present in many
public water supplies for years. They are formed when
chlorine is added to purify water.
Z Are THMs in drinking water bad for our health?
Long-term exposure is reported to carry increased risks
of cancers, including of the bladder and colon, and
causes damage to the heart, lungs, liver, kidney and
central nervous system.
Limited levels
Permissible levels of trihalomethanes in drinking water
are limited by the EU drinking water directive and World
Health Organisation guidelines.
It is understood that up to 400,000 households in
Ireland are affected, including ones in parts Kerry and
Cork, Kilkenny city, Waterford, Wicklow, Meath, Mayo,
Roscommon, Donegal and Galway.
In May 2015, the European Commission initiated a pilot
case here due to THMs levels exceeding guidelines in
some drinking water supplies.
A spokesman for the Department for Housing confirmed
that correspondence had been received and said it would
co-operate fully with the commission.
Irish Water, working closely with the Department of
Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government,
has developed plans and programmes to address these
THM exceedances where they have arisen, he said.
These plans were communicated to the commission as
part of the response to the pilot case.
The commission informed the department last week
that it has closed the pilot case but with the intention of
further treatment.
Irish Water said it was unaware of the commissions
response, but the company has already committed to
addressing areas with THM by 2021.
Its business plan sets out a clear commitment to reduce
the number of all schemes on the agencys remedial
action list, including those affected by trihalomethanes,
to zero.
Water charges
The Oireachtas is examining the future of water charges
before a vote in the Dil on March 13th.
A specially established committee will meet with the
European Commission on February 15th to outline its
response to the ongoing controversy.
Ireland has been warned it must meet its obligations
under the EU Water Framework Directive or it could
face additional action by the commission.
In its letter to the committee, it said Ireland must abide
by the principle of making the polluter pay and the cost
recovery principle.
The commission has urged the Government to charge for
excessive and wasteful use of water through metering.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/eu-to-
take-action-over-state-s-dangerous-drinking-water-
1.2955882
This is what the EU should be concerning itself with, the
health of citizens.
We draw the line when the Commissioner attempts to
interfere with the democratic wishes of the people as to
how we pay for our water though.
http://www.irishtimes.com//eu-to-take-action-over-state-
s-
Coveney risks general

election by facing down
FF ultimatum on water
charges
Niall O'Connor, Cormac McQuinn and Kevin Doyle
March 1 2017
Housing Minister Simon Coveney
Housing Minister Simon Coveney is to risk
to a general election by facing down an
3
3
Click here to view full-size graphic (Pictured: Pdraig Cidigh)
A committee set up by the Government to decide the
future of water services is on course to recommend that
they be funded through general taxation after Fianna Fil
dramatically hardened their position on the issue.
support the re-introduction of a charging regime.
This includes a proposal laid down by the Independent
Expert Commission that charges should be brought in only
for those engaged in "excessive usage".
But during a 25-minute press conference last night, Mr

Coveney emphatically stated that he will not abolish water
charges contrary to EU law.
"I'm just not going to do that as a minister. I will not
introduce legislation that potentially exposes the country
to severe penalties and fines from the European
Commission. I won't do that. We have clear advice from
the Attorney General's office.
"There has to be some consequence for households
wasting large amounts of water," he said.
He accused Fianna Fil of having a similar position "up
until a few days ago".
Stunned
Senior Fianna Fil sources were last night stunned by Mr
Coveney's reaction, with their party spokesman on water,
Barry Cowen, claiming the minister was breaking the
'confidence and supply' arrangement which ensures the
minority Government's survival.
It states that the Government must facilitate the passage
of legislation based on the committee's recommendations
"including abolition".
During a heated private sitting of the Oireachtas water
committee, the Independent chairperson Pdraig
Cidigh warned he could not accept proposals that are
illegal.
A source close to the senator last night said he was trying
to impress the view that any proposals brought forward
must be "workable".
Yesterday's meeting was tense and acrimonious. Anti-
Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy was told to "grow up"
for tweeting details of the meeting, while Sinn Fin TD
Eoin Broin was criticised for holding a press briefing
while the issue of water charges was still being discussed.
With the Dil due to vote on the issue of water charges
next month, the 20-person committee is now split down
the middle.
Ten members say they are opposed to any form of
charging regime. These include the five Fianna Fil
representatives, two Sinn Fin TDs, Independent deputies
Seamus Healy and Thomas Pringle and Mr Murphy. The
six Fine Gael representatives are in favour of a charging
regime for excessive usage, as are Labour's Jan O'Sullivan
and Senator Grace O'Sullivan of the Green Party.
Independent TD for Galway West Noel Grealish has yet to
decide his stance.
This means that the chairman, Senator Ceidigh may be
required to use his casting vote.
If the committee can resolve its differences, Fine Gael may
be forced to produce a minority report.
But with the Dil arithmetic stacked against the
Government, the prospect of charges returning at all
seems highly unlikely.
During the meeting, Mr Cowen told the committee his
party wants charges completely "scrapped".
He said the country's water system should be funded
The party also wants refunds issued to those who have
paid their bills but said these should be offset against the
Government's 100 conservation grant.
Meanwhile, a new opinion poll shows the vast majority of
voters believe households that waste water should be
charged for in some form.
The Labour Party commissioned 'Ireland Thinks' put a
series of statements relating to water charges to over 1,000
people to gauge attitudes.
The standout result was 77.9pc who said they either
agreed or strongly agreed that people who waste water
should be charged. Just 16.7 disagreed with this view.
Overall 68.7pc said everybody should pay something
towards water.
At the same time 51.4pc agreed that water is a basic
human right.
Regulator says Irish Water

should not proceed with
metering
Commission for Energy Regulation also proposes financial
incentives for homeowners
Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 20:39
Sarah Bardon
So far 58% of households have had meters put in place but several hundred
thousand properties remain to be linked
Irish Water should stop installing water meters in
homes, the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER)
has declared, warning that the cost of completion will
cripple efforts to improve water quality and supply.
In a submission to an Oireachtas committee which is
investigating options, the CER Irelands water
regulator said finishing the programme was not a
priority.
So far 58 per cent of households have had meters put in
place the installation efforts have been strongly
opposed in some places but several hundred thousand
properties remain to be linked. No money has been put
in Irish Waters 2017/18 capital budget to finish the
work.
If a decision was taken to complete further metering
then either significant additional funding would have to
be made available or a significant level of necessary
capital expenditure would have to be deferred from other
priorities for water investment for the time period 2017-
2018, the CER.
CER also proposes that householders should be given
the option of installing a meter which would entitle them
to a tax rebate if they use less water than the average.
Grants should be given to people who invest in water-
saving measures, while it also proposes that the
installation of meters in new houses and estates should
be mandatory.
Expert commission
The regulator made the submission to the newly-
established Oireachtas committee examining the future
of water charges. The committee was established last
year to consider a report by an expert commission.
This commission proposed water be funded by general
taxation and each household be given an average
allowance to be determined by the CER.
The regulator says it will consult publicly before deciding
on allowances and and penalties for excessive usage.
In a separate submission, Irish Water said 13 billion
must be invested in Irelands water and waste-water
services to ensure safe drinking water and proper sewage
treatment.
Irish Water said it does not believe water services should
be funded wholly or largely through the Exchequer since
this would put investment in competition with public
spending demands. It said guaranteed funding was
needed.
Shortfall in funding tends to disproportionately affect
the performance of the system since fixed costs [staff,
chemicals, and energy] must be met, so that any
shortfalls have a direct and rapid impact on the
condition of the assets and the operation of the service.
Legislation
If funding is to come from general taxation then
legislation will be needed to ensure that income is
guaranteed. The utility has required additional funding
from the Exchequer since water charges were suspended.
Irish Water confirmed that 714 million would be
needed this year the annual 475 million subvention
plus 239 million replacement revenue in lieu of
previous domestic billable income.
The Oireachtas committee will meet Thursday to hear
from Irish Water, the CER and officials from the
Department of Housing.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/regulator-says-
irish-water-should-not-proceed-with-metering-
1.2933685#.WHafIGex6YA.twitter
Simon Coveney moots free daily water

allowance of 123 litres
Adults should be allowed to use 123 litres of water per day
free of charge before excess costs apply under a new
system, Housing Minister Simon Coveney says.
Thursday, January 05, 2017
He said households who had still not paid old water bills
should be pursued but allowed to pay outstanding debts
over a long period.
A special commission last month recommended most
homes get water for free. Mr Coveney said parties wanted
to move on and agree a plan through a new Oireachtas
But in an interview with the Irish Examiner he also
admitted that he and the Government had not received
word from Brussels as to whether the new water charges
plan was acceptable.
He expected the free water allowance per adult to be
agreed by the Dil to be 123 litres per day.
The average usage in Ireland is about 46,000 litres. To be
exact it is about 123 litres per day for an average adult...
We need to be at the national average and probably a
little bit more than that so that people who are using
water will have some flexibility around being a little bit
above the average or below the average.
Mr Coveney stressed that he did not want to interfere with
the Oireachtas committee, which will begin its work next
week. But he still believes households using excess
amounts of water must pay more.
If people are using more than that, why should their
neighbours pay for it through general taxation?
has to pay for it. That is just not fair.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/simon-coveney-
moots-free-daily-water-allowance-of-123-litres-
437756.html
has to pay for it. That is just not fair.
Hands up who owns a swimming pool.
Hands up who knows someone who owns a swimming
pool....
No Simon, what's 'not fair' is us paying on the double,
treble or quadruple for our water.
What's 'not fair' is the government spending millions of
Euro to prevent us collecting 13 billion in taxes from
Apple (how many leaks could even the portion Fine Gael
say relates to Ireland that fix?) while small to medium
businesses, and indeed some other larger corporations are
being hammered.
What IS fair, equitable and progressive is to pay for our
water through general taxation and not at the point of use.
For the tiny amount of swimming pools in Ireland, why not
introduce a swimming pool tax?
FIANNA FIL WOULD

REINTRODUCE WATER
CHARGES, ADMITS COWEN
February 26, 2017
POST BODY
By Elaine Loughlin, political reporter
Fianna Fil has today confirmed it would reintroduce water charges
down the line if elected to Government.
Although the party have committed to abolishing Irish Water,
environment spokesman Barry Cowen said there would be a return
to water charges in a number of years.
Mr Cowen said: We want to abolish Irish water, we want to invest

in a water structure and we will invest more than is presently being
invested by the existing regime".
He said road tax and local authority funds went towards funding
the establishment of a gold-plated super quango which is not
delivering on the ground.
But yes, we accept that if you have a system that is fit for purpose,
if you have system where everybody gets based on quality, based
on delivery, based on need and based on leakage, if you can reach
the targets then yes, there is a system whereby people can make
their contribution over and above taxation.
He said this contribution would be minimal and it would take at
least 10 years before the water system would be up to an
adequate level.
It will be over taxation, it will be in the region of 50 or 100, I
dont know, Mr Cowen said.
But it will be for a Government at that time to decide on that. But
only when the system is fit for purpose, only when the network is
as it should be across the State.
He said the plan would involve abolition of Irish Water as it
currently stands.
Under Fianna Fils proposals, 100 of the 700 staff currently
working with Irish Water would be retained, while the remaining
employees would be redeployment within local authorities or would
be offered redundancies.
Speaking at Fianna Fils headquarters this morning, Mr Cowen
said his party would prioritise spending on services ahead of
reducing taxes if the economy does not grow as quickly as is
forecast.
Mr Cowen said: We are the only party that has said in the event of
the projected growth that is being talked about by all parties not
materialising, that we will prioritise services over taxation.
We do not want to see the better off becoming even better off
while 1,700 children are still in emergency accommodation.
There is a wide suite of measures that we would want to
implement in Government, including the abolition of Irish Water.
Mr Cowen said they have 71 candidates and they would be going
out to try to win all of these seats.
Who in the blue f**k gives a s**t what way FG are running their
circus, RT as usual trying to entertain (distract) the Irish citizens
(your audience) from the real stories and the real questions like :
Why is the housing crises getting worse each day?
Why are the HSE hospital waiting lists and trolley numbers not being
addressed by our successive governments?
Why do we have a corrupt justice system with collusion between the

Gardai, judges and politicians?
Why is their special 'justice' only for the little and honest people?
Why have corrupt and/or negligent and/or crony and/or incompetent

politicians, journalists, bankers, senior civil servants & judges never
been held to account by our public service broadcaster?
Why are the wages of those same politicians, senior civil servants &
bankers & RTE presenters always going up significantly while
everybody else's are stagnant or being chipped away at with little
people taxes?
Why is the 9m orchestrated loss by CIE a story when the 20m loss
in RT last year wasn't really a story, was is because your loss was
in large part due to the RT parasite presenters getting their wages
significantly lifted at the same time?
Why do RT never critically analyse the absolute squandering of tax

payers money on privatisation of Irish Water, Eircode, Voting
Machines, massive golden handshakes, massive and early paid
pensions to the golden circle etc etc....?
Why do the journalists never scrutinise the numbers or statistics

given too them by the government such as trolley numbers, waiting
lists, live register, suicides, repossessions etc....?
Why do the extremely wealthy companies and Irish people pay less
and less taxes while we all pay more?
Why did the billions of debts of 2 private banks become the debt of
millions of innocent Irish, just because no politician or journalists
challenged it as part of their public representative role?
Why should anyone pay their TV licence for false and/or biased
and/or propaganda news?
Why are there no real journalists left?
And that's only for starters, not even getting into the world
news....so stop just reading out the government and Reuter
propaganda/distraction. Why don't you get your teeth stuck into that
instead of trying to distract the Irish citizens with all your absolute
trash....earn your wages (high) and be honest impartial journalists!!
Remember when they introduced bin charges they gave waivers to
many who couldn't afford to pay... that is how they will introduce
water charges...under the guise they will charge only for "excessive
use" and soon we will all be charged for "excessive use"... don't be
fooled... no means no... no charges
Brendan Ogles balanced
insiders guide to water
protests
From Bended Knee to a New Republic review: the Irish
fightback against water charges vividly recounted
Julien Mercille
Tue, Dec 20, 2016
Irish people love their history. The problem, however, is

that much of it goes unrecorded for lack of time, lack of
writers, or lack of resources. Events and characters thus
often vanish into oblivion or become the objects of
entertaining myths and legends, leaving us largely in the
dark over what really shaped what we have become.
In this respect, one of Brendan Ogles main contributions
in this book (subtitled How the Fight for Water Is
Changing Ireland) is to vividly document Irelands water
charges protest movement, which emerged in reaction to
austerity policies implemented across the Europe. The
communities, trade unions and political parties that came
together to tell the Government that enough is enough
created an event of historical significance in fact, per
capita one of the worlds most important protest
movements for social change.
Ogle has been at the centre of this adventure from its
inception. His writing combines personal reflection and
analysis to tell the story of Right2Change and
Right2Water, the groups around which the protests have
coalesced. His approach is effective, moving seamlessly
from light anecdotes to more serious interpretation. It is,
overall, a reliable and balanced guide to the water protests
and the institutional infrastructure supporting them, told
by an insider.
Self-critical appraisal
Ogle has been a trade union man for years and works for
Unite. But lets discard one likely prejudice immediately:
From Bended Knee to a New Republic is not a biased or
uncritical account of everything on the left. In fact, it is on
many occasions a candid, human and self-critical
appraisal of its subject and of its authors role in it.
For example, Ogle readily concedes agreeing with those
who believe trade unions are in many respects part of the
establishment and have sold out by entering social
partnership, and that they have become ineffective and too
close to power. What he seeks to highlight, however, is
that some unions still take effective action to achieve social
change, such as the six that joined the water protest
movement (Unite, Mandate, the Communications
Workers Union, the OPATSI, CPSU and TEEU) out of 50
unions or so nationally.
The book also contains lively and frank discussions of the
difficulties in putting together a national coalition of
ordinary people, left political parties and unions. In
particular, Ogle tells in some detail how the pragmatic
progressive approach of the unions and communities
regularly clashed with attempts by the Anti-Austerity
Alliance and People Before Profit to out-radicalise
everybody.
To read the inside story of the water charges movement is
to enter into a world that many may consider mysterious.
But the journey on which Ogle takes us will be eye-opening
to readers unfamiliar with the activist scene in Ireland.
And what is striking is the simplicity of it all.
We meet people struggling to build a more progressive
Ireland with all the pitfalls and rewards that it entails.
These include Dave Gibney, the co-organiser of
Right2Change, and Michael Taft, the economist behind
many of the groups budgetary proposals. There are also
the numerous ordinary people who have succeeded in
establishing 106 local protest groups in 26 counties, and
who constitute the movements most important
component.
We are also presented with the campaigns 10 policy
principles, including the right to a good health care
system, the right to decent conditions in the work place,
the right to housing, the right to equality and a sustainable
environment. This shows that the movement does offer
practical alternatives and is not simply a knee-jerk
reaction to government.
Negative media coverage
There is, finally, a recurring theme about the media
coverage of the water charges movement. News outlets
have been largely in favour of water charges, so the protest
movement has therefore received its fair share of negative
coverage, just like other forms of resistance or reaction to
the past years of austerity.
For example, every citizen must know by now that Labour
Party leader Joan Burton was imprisoned in her car for
2 hours, surrounded by protesters. Yet, the same
sympathy has not been visible in elite discourse for the six
individuals who have been jailed by the State, some of
them for weeks, for protesting the water meters. Their
names may even have been forgotten: Damien ONeill,
Bernie Hughes, Derek Byrne, Paul Moore, Sean Doyle and
Eamon McGrath.
Given the hot temperature that characterizes the issue of
Irish water charges, the book promises to generate much
debate. And thats a good thing, because the movement it
describes is of historical significance.
http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/brendan
-ogle-s-balanced-insider-s-guide-to-water-protests-
1.2893529
Thank you to a dear friend who sent these on to me this morning.
Yesterday was extremely difficult and emotional and I'm sure there
are people looking at me saying "aw here she goes again" but
honestly I couldn't help my tears they were flowing out....I hope this
never has to happen again. At least not for a very very long
time...maybe then it will be a protest for CF to stand for CURE
FOUND
People Before Profit
Like Page
5 hrs
VICTORY IS CLOSE ON WATER CHARGES AS ESTABLISHMENT PARTIES
FORCED TO SURRENDER
Housing Minister Simon Coveney said yesterday that normal water
bills would be abolished.
Water charges are gone, theyre going to be abolished, said Mr
Coveney. Normal usage for households across the country will be
paid for through general taxation."
People power has won this - a mass movement of protests and
boycott forced the political establishment into a corner.
Fine Gael tried to delay this massive defeat by calling for a
commission- but the majority of TDs in the Dil, sensing the power
of the movement, had to declare against the charges.
The commission is split but the Dil vote would see the charge fall
and Fine Gael know they are powerless to stop it.
Fianna Fail, who only last year said they would pursue non-payers,
flip flopped and decided to oppose Fine Gael on the charge. This
opportunism comes with one eye on the polls.
Fine Gael want to use the issue of 'excessive use' to try and keep a
door open for water charges in the future. Working class families
don't own 'swimming pools'- it's a red herring.
We won't let them use 'excessive use' to sneak charges back in. If
they don't scrap the water charges- all of the charges. We will be
back on the streets on March 25th.
One thing is certain. Things will never be the same again. The
lesson of the water charges movement should be clear to all
workers- people power can stop austerity.
FINE GAEL WILLING TO
SQUANDER BILLIONS OF
EURO TO SAVE FACE
March 3, 2017
Having already wasted 650 million euros on
unnecessary domestic water meters, Fine Gael are
now insisting on squandering a further 300 to 500
million Euros to complete an unnecessary and
highly controversial job, using an excuse that
private metering is the best way of preventing
excessive use.
However they have been heard from many quarters,
including Scottish Water (see video below)' that
District metering can deliver the same result for a
tiny fraction of this cost.
Rather than admit they got it completely wrong
they are now hell-bent on a monumental, cynical
face saving exercise.
This is not just shameful, it is bordering on
CRIMINAL.
February 8th 2017 meeting of Committee on Future
Funding of Domestic Water Alan Farrell, Fine Gael TD,
admits to hearing from all quarters how district metering
can work effectively.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGO5Gzm9Kbs
Full Oireachtas Commettee meeting with Scottish and Welsh Water
March 3rd 2017
https://oireachtas.heanet.ie/mp4/cr4/latest/cr4_20170208.mp4
WORLD HEALTH
ORGANIZATION BLATANT
FAILURE ON
RADIOFREQUENCY/MICROWA
VE RADIATION
March 3, 2017
POST BODY
<img
src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55075f84e4b0f11bacb1b8d0/t/
58b9293c1b10e36459d0331a/1488529769393/whowireless.png"
alt="whowireless.png"/>
This is a letter and petition sent by Olga Sheean to Dr

Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization
on 30th January 2017. The letter states
"The World Health Organization is failing the Earths citizens in the
most blatant, destructive manner. In December 2016, a VOTE of
NO CONFIDENCE in WHO and its EMF Project was initiated in
response to the growing concerns among the millions of global
citizens being harmed by radiofrequency/microwave radiation. The
petition has been signed by thousands of individuals worldwide,
with more adding their vote every day as they become aware of
how WHOs denial of the proven dangers has stripped them of
their health, rights, livelihood, productivity and protection from their
own governments. As of today, 30 January 2017, there are 2,003
names on the list (attached), with more being added daily. Details
of the voting initiative are shown in appendix 3. Recognizing the
significance of this growing discontent with your wilful neglect, and
heeding the urgent call to protective action, are important first
steps towards addressing an epidemic that threatens all forms of
life on our planet. Nothing short of full implementation of the
recommendations presented herein will resolve this crisis.
Radiofrequency/microwave radiation is everywhereconstantly
and increasingly emanating from cell phones, WiFi routers, cell
towers and telecommunications satellites. It is proliferating
unchecked and people are suffering
and dying because of it. Via its International EMF Project, WHO is
supposed to be protecting us from the harmful effects of this
radiation radiation that we cannot see, smell or taste, even
though it penetrates and affects every cell of our electromagnetic
bodies. WHO is failing to protect its global citizens from this
pervasive pollutant in four key ways:
Olga Sheean
1. industry infiltration2. intentional ignorance3. denial of the
science4. disregard for humanity
This document provides details of these inexcusable failures and
what urgently needs to be done to address them. It also outlines
what WHO must do to reverse this destructive coursefor itself
and for the global citizens it is supposed to protect. One of the
most crucial and urgent steps to be taken is the replacement of the
head of the EMF Project, Emilie van Deventer (an electrical
engineer with zero health credentials) with an independent,
unbiased, medically qualified professional who has firsthand
experience and knowledge of microwave sickness/electro-
sensitivity and the many other devastating consequences, such as
brain cancer, neurological disorders, DNA damage and infertility.
You can no longer claim ignorance or justify any further delay. Only
one question remains, and what you do next will clearly
demonstrate where you stand on this issue:
Are you committed to forever debating the science, siding with
industry and postponing action, or are you committed to protecting
our health? The world is watching and we are waiting for your
response."
Olga Sheean
https://olgasheean.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/WHO-setting-
the-standard-for-a-wireless-world-of-harm.pdf
Kate O'Connell Fine Gael TD Dublin Bay
North
Mar 4, 2016
Dublin City Council row over Fluoride in drinking water. Kate O
Connell, FG councillor 'For Your Entertainment' facebook post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9Pq9iI10gk
RIGHT2WATER CAMPAIGN
ACCUSED OF MAJOR U-TURN
February 23, 2017

POST BODY
Tuesday, February 21, 2017 - 05:32 pm
The Right2Water campaign have been accused of doing a major u-
turn after it said that those who abuse or waste water should face
charges, writes Daniel McConnell, Political Editor.
The concession by the group, which has been vehemently
opposed to water charges, was seen as a major climbdown by the
Government.
Housing Minister Simon Coveney, responding to an Irish Examiner
online report of the comments, described the u-turn as a
interesting development.
Addressing the Dil's new Water committee, representatives of the
Right2Water group agreed that charges should apply in cases
where people use excessive amounts of water.
Under questioning from Fianna Fil's Barry Cowen, Stevie
Fitzpatrick and David Gibney were pressed about previous
comments from Brendan Ogle, the high-profile spokesman for the
Right2Water campaign.
David Gibney
Mr Ogle, like Mr Gibney, speaks for the Right2Water movement.
He was asked specifically if he opposed charging people for
excessive use and he said he was not. Does the Right2Water
movement share that viewpoint?, Mr Cowen asked.
Mr Fitzpatrick responded It is the viewpoint.
If this committee was in a position to agree a process by which
people who use excessive amounts, in the opinion of this
committee, were charged, is Right2Water happy with that? asked
Mr Cowen.
Yes, was the response from Mr Fitzpatrick.
Mr Cowen asked at what level did the witnesses think was
appropriate to consider excessive.
Let us say the Minister said 123 litres a day was acceptable and
we suggested the limit should be two or three times that amount
and recommended a swimming pool take for beyond that amount.
How would the witnesses penalise people who use more than that
amount of water? he asked.
Mr Gibney responded: In terms of swimming pools, I live in a
community that does not have a swimming pool and I do not know
anyone who owns a swimming pool.
Right2Water is not opposed to the Government introducing a
swimming pool tax.
There might be a provision in terms of commercial water charges
and taxes. If we want to address waste then let us address areas
where water is wasted.
As much as 41% of water is lost through leaks.
Speaking to the Irish Examiner, Mr Cowen, said the statement by
the Right2Water spokespeople was truly significant.
<
Barry Cowan
Mr Gibney said the Government has given 2.7bn in tax cuts in
recent years while funding for water services has been cut.
If you want to fund water properly, stop giving away tax cuts, so
let's address the core issue, he said.
Mr Gibney questioned the Government's strategy of reducing the
Universal Social Charge and he singled out Bank of Ireland boss
Richie Boucher as to how much he pays.
Richie Boucher, who works for Bank of Ireland, pays 63,000 in
USC because he is a high earner. That is equivalent to a salary for
two nurses, Mr Gibney said.
Committee chairman Padraig O Ceidigh told Mr Gibney it was not
appropriate to name individuals like that.
Mr Gibney was forced to apologise.
Fine Gael's Martin Heydon accused Mr Gibney of being opposed
to cutting taxes for ordinary workers.
He said that 6% of the highest earners in this country pay 49% of
the income tax and USC, which is a fairly substantial figure.
They are also the key people who drive business and economic
activity in this country, said Mr Heydon.
I am surprised that Mr Gibney is opposed to cuts in income tax for
ordinary workers, he added.
R2W agrees charging for excess water
use
Feb 21, 2017
R2W Oireachtas Committee on Funding Domestic Water Feb 21
2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3osGZb5mUK0
RT One Prime Time LoughFoyle
Jan 18, 2017
Prime Time Tue 17 Jan 2017
Uncertainty over the border has led to a free-for-all among
oyster farmers in Lough Foyle leading to environmental
disaster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcpLk_snsRI
I get it me best to feed my kids never mind pay a corupt company

for water we already pay for dob rich enough the rest of us are only
living day by day and you be singing a diffrent tune if you were
down this end of the ladder with the rest of us i can,t pay and if i
could i wouldn,t that whole company build on coruption and lies the
can go shite and the threatening old people and cold calling people
not paying ever
The Chair of an Oireachtas Committee on Future Funding of Water
Services does not have a casting vote. Of the 20 members, 10 Have
declared against all charges for domestic water. 8 have declared for
a charge for" excess usage of water". Two have not declared their
positions.
Waste of water is against the Law. A charge for excess water
usage will make water a commodity rather than a public good. This
would enable governments to phase back in charges for domestic
water over time. Existing law can be strengthened to deter waste of
domestic water.
Noel Grealish is an Independent TD and Grace OSullivan is a
Senator member of the Green Party but crucially is on the
committee representing a Civic Engagement Group that also
includes:
Alice Mary Higgins alicemary.higgins@oireachtas.ie
Frances Black frances.black@oireachtas.ie
Lynn Ruane lynn.ruane@oireachtas.ie
John Dolan john.dolan@oireachtas.ie
Collette Kelleher Colette.kelleher@oireachtas.ie
If the Civic Engagement Group take a position against charges in
any guise and Fianna Fail maintain their current position, the
complete abolition position will have a majority on the Oireachtas
Committee on Future Funding of Water Services.
Please lobby these individual members of the Oireachtas to oppose
charges in any guise.
Revenue should refund

Irish Water customers,
Fianna Fil insists
March 3, 17
Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government Simon
Coveney. Photo: Steve Humphreys
Fianna Fil has called for the Revenue
Commissioners to be tasked with refunding
Irish Water customers who paid their bills
over the last two years.
In its submission to the Oireachtas Committee on the
Oireachtas Committee on the future funding of Domestic
Water Services, the party insists bill payers who have proof
of payment should be able to avail of refunds from
Revenue.
Refunds of water charges paid to date should be issued
via the Revenue Commission once proof of payment is
provided. This should be cross referenced with
Department of Social Protection Water Conservation
Grant payments information to ensure there is no over
payment, the document states.
Fianna Fil is also sticking to its demand for the complete
abolition of any charges for water. The party is insisting
that those who waste or abuse water can be penalised
under the existing Water Services Act 2007.
Read More: Households to get 325 in water bill
refunds
In the submission, the party says contrary to media spin
it has always been in favour of curbing excessive use of
water.
The current Domestic Water charges regime should be
abolished in full. However, we accept the Expert
Commission view on the need to curb excessive water
usage, it states. It also notes the committee heard no
evidence of wide scale abuse of water in Ireland. It also
insists no more meters should be installed.
Fianna Fils Barry Cowen speaking outside Leinster House.

Photo: Tom Burke
Meanwhile, Fine Gael has softened its stance and has
asked the Dils legal advisors to determine whether a
Fianna Fil proposal on water charges is compliant with
EU law.
In documents circulated to TDs and senators today, the
party says it will also request that the chairman of the
water committee, Senator Pdraig Ceidigh, meets the
Attorney General to discuss the various legal advices
received.
But the Fine Gael submission states that the party will not
support any Committee recommendation that calls on the
Government to bring forward legislation that runs
contrary to the advice of the Attorney General.
The Fine Gael document states that in order to comply
with EU law, a charge for excess usage should be
introduced.
While the party says it would prefer if those who did not
pay their bills were pursued, it admits that that such an
approach could result in an administrative costs.
The approach taken must reflect the commitment in the
Confidence and Supply arrangement that those who have
paid their water bills to date will be treated no less
favourably than those who have not.
The Fianna Fail submission is also especially critical of
Housing Minister Simon Coveneys intervention on the
debate earlier this week.
We are disappointed and surprised that Minister
Coveney, who is not a member of the Committee,
prematurely intervened by outlining advice he had from
the Attorney General. This unprecedented move came
before the Committee had even completed its own
deliberations, the document states.
crisis/revenue-should-refund-irish-water-customers-fianna-fil-insists-
35499350.html
EIB funding in the

pipeline to improve Irish
supply network
1
The EIB says it is ready to fund water upgrades in Ireland once
the Government decides what to do about charges. Stock Image
The European Investment Bank says it is
ready to fund water upgrades in Ireland -
once the Government decides what to do
about charges.
EIB vice-president Andrew McDowell said that "assuming
Ireland comes to a consensus on the best way to fund
water infrastructure, if that involves looking for EIB
financing to help address the infrastructure deficit through
Irish Water, we're certainly happy to work with the Irish
authorities".
Mr McDowell, a former economic adviser to Taoiseach
Enda Kenny, was speaking to the Irish Independent after
the water commission advised that households should pay
only for "wasteful usage" and not regular water
consumption.
But it remains to be seen whether the system the
Government chooses will comply with EU rules.
A spokesman for environment commissioner Karmenu
Vella said the European Commission "has made its
position clear" in its official submission to the report -
which said that "disapplying" water charges would breach
the EU's water framework directive.
"We will now have to evaluate the report, in light of the
recommendations of the Expert Commission," the
spokesman said.
He said he "notes the Irish Parliamentary Committee
established to examine the report will now start its work
with a view to concluding by March of 2017".
Meanwhile Mr McDowell, who took up his role with the
bank in September, didn't express an opinion on water
charges, but said it was "an awful lot easier" to deal with
Irish Water than the previous decentralised set-up.
"Previously, trying to discuss water investment with 34
different local authorities was just not feasible," he said.
"Now we have a single national utility that we can talk
with, and discuss their overall investment programme,
and what role we can play in financing that."
The EIB, the EU's long-term lender, has approved 200m
in loans to Irish Water since 2012, half of which was never
drawn down, given the controversy over water charges.
The bank has also announced a bid to step up lending in
Ireland post-Brexit.
"We are looking to develop a new, stronger institutional
relationship between the EIB and the Irish authorities,"
said Mr McDowell.
"The best thing the EIB can do to support Ireland and to
help protect its economic recovery against the uncertainty
that's been generated by the UK referendum outcome is to
increase our levels of lending into Ireland."
He said the bank wanted to help Ireland address
"infrastructure deficits" and improve financing conditions
for companies impacted by the drop in the value of the
pound.
"There's a whole range of mitigants that I'm sure the Irish
authorities will be looking for from Europe, in the context
of the Brexit negotiations, and obviously the EIB has a role
in that," added Mr McDowell.
He made the comments as diplomats were meeting with
the European Commission's lead Brexit negotiator, Michel
Barnier, to discuss "the issues at stake" in future divorce
proceedings with the UK.
A Commission spokesman said this would "contribute to
building a common understanding of the process to
come".
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/irish-water-crisis/eib-
funding-in-the-pipeline-to-improve-irish-supply-network-
35258802.html
Protesters get under

orders to halt water
'Trojan horse'
Kevin Doyle
December 1 2016
8
Anti-Austerity Alliance and People Before Profit TDS (l-r) Gino
Kenny, Paul Murphy, Brid Smith, Mick Barry and Richard Boyd-
Barrett meet the media outside Leinster House to respond to the
Expert Commission on Water Charges report. Photo: Tom Burke
Protesters plan to organise a series of
marches from February ahead of a Dil vote
on the future of water charges.
TDs who have been to the forefront of protests since the
introduction of charges say they intend to mobilise again,
despite the Expert Commission recommending that the
majority of households will pay nothing
Housing Minister Simon Coveney has indicated his party can live
with the new regime on the basis that charges will still apply for
excessive usage. However, the party is split on how to deal with
the issue of refunds. Photo: Tom Burke
Anti-Austerity Alliance/People Before Profit TD Brd
Smith said that the political pillar of the Right To Water
movement is already preparing for a new campaign to stop
what she called a "Trojan horse to bring water charges
back".
"There will be serious moves to organise big
demonstrations in the new year, probably in February. The
committee is due to report back around March so we'll be
mobilising before that," she said.
The Dublin South Central TD said a protest march in
September had attracted 40,000 even though they hadn't
put huge efforts into promoting it. "It was quite
astonishing. I think that'll happen again," she said.
Richard Boyd Barrett noted that the commission found
Ireland "does not have a problem of excessive household
usage".
"In fact, we use 20pc less water per household than Britain
does, which has had charges and meters for many years.
"There is therefore no excuse or justification on the basis
of water conservation for water charges," he said.
The deputy argued that if the Government was serious
about conservation, they would introduce incentives for
people who install water-saving devices.
"The Government is spoofing when it argues that it wants
water conservation. It actually wants to impose a
regressive and unfair tax on householders and the people
will not be conned."
Dublin South West TD Paul Murphy said the report was a
"fudge to allow Fine Gael to claim water charges are still in
place and for Fianna Fil to say that water charges are
gone".
crisis/protesters-get-under-orders-to-halt-water-trojan-horse-
35258780.html
Firms face water bill

hikes under 'harmonised'
system
Paul Melia
October 31 2016
Thousands of small and medium-sized
businesses face hikes in their water bills
when the regulator introduces a
"harmonised" system of charges in just over
a year.
Some 190,000 SMEs and large users will be hit with a
billing review in 2018, but any increases are likely to be
phased in over a period of years, the Irish Independent has
learned.
The move comes because more than 500 separate tariffs
are currently in place, and the Commission for Energy
Regulation (CER) wants to introduce a streamlined system
where a national charge applies.
Some companies will pay more, and others less when the
review is finalised, sources said.
"It's going to be a challenging project and sensitive," one
said. "This is hugely complex. It would be highly unusual
to have so many tariff structures for customers in a
country the size of Ireland. We're looking at a system
which is more simple and transparent."
Non-domestic customers currently pay their water bills
based on the charges which applied and were levied by
local authorities in 2013.
The 'average' cost for 1,000 litres of drinking water, and to
dispose of 1,000 litres of wastewater, stands at 2.37.
However, businesses in Kildare pay a combined charge of
just 1.59 - the cheapest in the country. By contrast, those
in Wicklow pay 3.04 - the most expensive.
The situation is further complicated by different 'standing'
and other charges applied. In addition, many large users
enjoy discounts, and may have entered into contracts with
local authorities which cannot be broken.
Disposal
Irish Water is currently taking control of the non-domestic
sector from local authorities, and this project is expected
to finish early next year.
It is also collating data on where these customers are
located, the amount of water they use and amounts paid.
Among the options being considered in the design of the
new tariff system include a geographical basis for
charging. This could involve lower charges in areas where
the cost of treatment and disposal of wastewater are
cheaper. However, sources said anything other than a
national charge was "unlikely".
Other issues include the imposition of a standing charge,
different rates depending on usage and different charges
for different sectors of the economy.
The CER will begin a public consultation on the new
system early next year, which will run for 12 months. A
final decision will be announced in early 2018, which will
include an outline of when the new charges will take effect.
New firms could be subject to the new tariff system
automatically, but no decision has been reached.
"Irish Water will make proposals on what way they think
the non-domestic tariff system will work going forward," a
source said. "It will include the costs of providing water,
but also how do we get people paying now to a simple,
more transparent system.
"It isn't going to be a big bang. They won't see tariffs go up
20pc or down 10pc. We have asked for a plan to transfer
people across over time - and it could be a considerable
period of time - to the new tariffs.
"Now we have a single water utility model, it would be
fairly standard to have a simple and equitable tariff
regime."
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/irish-water-crisis/firms-
face-water-bill-hikes-under-harmonised-system-35174944.html
Taoiseach insists Government will not

support any water charge system that
breaks EU laws
02/03/2017
Update 3.15pm: Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said that his
Government will not implement legislation on water charges
which is illegal, writes Daniel McConnell.
Speaking in Brussels, Mr Kenny said that it is for the
Committee to hammer out a compromise and deliver a
recommendation for the Dail to vote on.
"Clearly, you are not going to implement something that is
illegal," the Taoiseach said.
He added: "The committee has not finished its work, it was
given a paper by the chairman. I would expect them to
deliberate on that and continue their work until such time as
they bring forward their views and their recommendations to
the Oireachtas."
Asked whether Attorney General Maire Whelan could be made
available to Fianna Fail to help resolve the matter, Mr Kenny
poured cold water on the idea.
He said: "You don't make the advice of the Attorney General

available like that. I've said yesterday in the Dail, we set up a
committee to examine the recommendations of the expert
commission.
"As we said we want the discussions to continue within the
committee. When they are finished their work, they will report
to the Oireachtas," he added.
Update 11.47am: It has emerged that a small number of

households are still claiming the 100 water conservation
grant - despite it being scrapped a year ago.
The grant was paid to households in 2015 as a way of helping
to cover the cost of water bills, and subsidise water
conservation measures.
The state spent 89m covering the cost of the grants, which
were then scrapped when water charges were suspended.
However the Public Accounts Committee has been told this
morning that a small number of households are still claiming
the one-off grant, having not received it in 2015.
Seperately, a Junior Minister has said that there needs to be a
reasonable approach to water charges.
Joe McHugh said that the Oireachtas committee on water
needs to be given a chance to complete its work.
Fianna Fil and Fine Gael are at odds over the legality of
scrapping the charges.
Mr McHugh said there is an energy in Fine Gael to reach a
solution and avoid a possible election.
"There's always the potential, in the moniortity situation that
we're in," he said.
"We have a confidence and suppley [agreement] with Fianna
Fil and I'm sure people within Fianna Fil, who I speak to
privatey as well, that can find a solution to this empasse."
Earlier:
Fine Gael members have been warned that Ireland would be
hit with a daily 20,000 fine, backdated to 2009, if water
charges are scrapped, writes Elaine Loughlin, Political
Reporter.
committee, told party members that Ireland would be fined
more than 50m by the European Commission if they do not
implement water charges.

charges put forward by Fianna Fil in recent days were legally
questionable and told his fellow Fine Gael members that the
commission had already given Ireland a grace period to
introduce these charges.
He said said that it was always going to be difficult toward the
end of negotiations around the future of water.
It was agreed that space be given to the Fine Gael team in the
committee to continue to negotiate the issues.
There was laughter when Mr Coffey suggested that he had got
to know members of the committee intimately during their
work on the future of water charges.
Separately measures to free up vacant properties around the
country were raised during the meeting.
Fergus ODowd told the meeting that there are currently 4,491
vacant homes in Cork City, with only 52 of these holiday
homes.

Mr ODowd told Fine Gael members that Cork currently has a
vacancy rate of 8.1%, this compares to a vacancy rate of just
1.7% in London.
He suggested that homeowners who leave properties vacant
for more than a year should be penalised with a levy.
Coveney.
Mr Coveney said he was already looking into the high rates of
vacant properties across the country and hoped to have a
report back on the matter in the next six to eight weeks.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Taoiseach Enda Kenny
singled out secretary Noel Rock and noted what a good job he
was doing on the minute-taking of meetings.

It comes after the Dublin North-West TD faced criticism when
he publicly suggested that it was time Mr Kenny stood down
as Fine Gael leader.
The Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) has said the
water-metering programme should be parked, but not
abandoned.
The Oireachtas Committee on the future funding for water
charges has heard that if the State is going to be the main
funder, then investing in meters is not a priority, and that
leaking pipes should be fixed instead.
However, the Commission has admitted they have no definitive
answer on how to work out whether a house is being wasteful
with water.
Labour TD Jan O'Sullivan said that without water meters, it will
be impossible to charge households who use water unfairly.
Paul McGowan is from the CER said the proposal from the
expert commission is that the vast majority of the water should
be paid for by the State, and only excessive use should be
charged for.
"In that context, we said that at this time there are other
priorities for capital investment, but that we could come back
and look at whether there is a case for further metering in due
course," he said.
Update 4.45pm: A meeting of the Oireachtas committee on
water charges has failed to reach agreement about the
possibility of scrapping charges entirely.
The 20-member committee will instead be given another draft
of a final report next Tuesday.
Fine Gael and Fianna Fil have continued to clash today about
the legality of water charges being scrapped for all customers.
Update 2.45pm: Simon Coveney is insisting he will not
introduce any laws to totally scrap water charges, claiming it
would be illegal under EU law.
But the Housing Minister says he hopes the dispute doesn't
result in a general election - because the public doesn't want
one.
advertisement
Earlier the Taoiseach hinted that legislation to scrap water

charges could be facilitated as long as it was tabled by
someone else.
Simon Coveney says there is no need to collapse the

Government over it: Well I certainly hope not.
I think people would be very surprised and annoyed if there
was a general election on this issue, we have big issues to
solve whether it is Brexit, whether it is housing, whether it is
homelessness, whether it is health care reform or education,
so may more things at the moment that the Government is
working on at the moment, in some cases with Fianna Fil.
Update 1pm: Fianna Fil says the Government will collapse if
it refuses to implement the findings of the Oireachtas
But Enda Kenny is insisting the Government cannot introduce
legislation which it believes would break EU law.
The Oireachtas committee on water charges is meeting again
this afternoon to discuss whether there should be a charge for
excessive use'.
In the Dil Enda Kenny said the Government couldn't be
expected to ignore the advice of its own Attorney General:
Minister Coveney has at his disposal, legal advice that is very
strong and very clear and I am sure if ever you sit on these
benches, as Minister for whatever, you would not be putting
through legislation that you have very strong legal advice that
it is illegal to do so.
Update 11.41am: Fianna Fail have warned that any attempt to
undermine or bring down a committee examining the future of
water charges could breach a deal with Fine Gael and
potentially cause a general election, writes political
correspondent Juno McEnroe.
Party housing spokesman Barry Cowen (pictured) warned that
if Housing Minister Simon Coveney didn't do what the
Oireachtas committee wanted that this could result in an
election.
The fresh warning by the Fianna Fail TD comes after Minister
Coveney on Tuesday night also laid down a warning that he is
not willing to completely scrap water charges, as this would be
illegal.
He said that a move to rule out any excess charge would be
against advice from the Attorney General and the European
Commission.
The standoff from both sides is the most serious yet since the
confidence and supply agreement was made between Fine
Gael and Fianna Fai last year.
The Oireachtas committee resumes deliberations about its
report today, which will recommend to the Dail on how to deal
with charges before a final vote at the end of March.
Mr Cowen though, speaking to Sean O'Rourke on RTE, said
Fianna Fail now considered that the full abolishment of
charges was the best way forward. Any 'excess' charge for
wasting water could be expensive to process and bring back
little in revenue, he said. This is the model preferred by Fine
Gael.
Existing legislation instead could be used to pursue people
wasting water, said Mr Cowen.
He said Minister Coveney's intervention was extraordinary
and risked undermining the work of the committee.
The confidence and supply agreement between the two
parties could break down, admitted the Offaly TD, but it didn't
need to.
Minister Coveney could not bring the committee down or
refuse to implement its recommendations as this would
definitely cause a general election, added Mr Cowen.
Update 10.30am: Fine Gael is rejecting accusations that the
Housing Minister has interfered in the work of the water
services committee.
Last night Simon Coveney insisted he would not bring in laws
on a new system if they do not include charges for wasting
water.
That is despite the fact the confidence and supply agreement

between Fine Gael and Fianna Fail requires him to introduce
legislation to support the system agreed.
Sinn Fein's Eoin O'Broin, who is a member of the committee,
was not impressed with the Minister's comments: The
intervention by Minister Coveney last night is quite
unprecedented.
He set this process up, he said he wanted us to deliberate
and deliver a report and at that point the Oireachtas would
have its say.
I think what he was doing last night was interfering.
Update 9.29am: Fianna Fil has accused Housing Minister
Simon Coveney of disrespecting the Oireachtas committee
charged with addressing water charges.
His comment comes after the Minister intervened last night
and said he would not bring in laws on a new system - if they
do not include charges for wasting the utility.
The Confidence and Supply Arrangement between Fine Gael
and Fianna Fil requires him to introduce legislation to support
the system agreed by the committee.
Michael McGrath
Fianna Fil's Spokesperson for Finance Michael McGrath says

the intervention is disrespectful.
What Simon Coveney said last night means that Fine Gael
would be flagrantly breaching the agreement they entered into
with Fianna Fil whereby they gave a commitment to facilitate
the passage of legislation in Dil ireann to give effect to the
will of the Dil, he said.
So he seems to be prepared to throw that out the window.
Simon Coveney
We are honouring our agreement and were not going to be

derailed by Simon Coveneys efforts to come across as the
strong man in all of this.
Fine Gael TD Alan Farrell, who is a member of the committee
which is working on the water service funding, has dismissed
the accusation against Minister Coveney as 'hilarious' and
says he is hopeful the issue can be resolved.
Alan Farrell
The Committee has to consider the amount of work left, he

said.
Were not a point where were drafting the final remarks.
Were not done yet, and I think that this matter can be I
hope that this matter can be resolved.
Earlier:
A fresh row has emerged over water charges which could put
pressure on the Confidence and Supply Arrangement between
FineGael and Fianna Fil.
The deal between Fine Gael and Fianna Fil included setting
up an Oireachtas Committee to decide the future of water
charges - with Housing Minister Simon Coveney to introduce
whatever laws that new system would require.
However, in a dramatic intervention last night, he said he
would not bring forward those laws if the new system did not
include charges for households who waste water.
measures, and he would legislate to drop them.
"It is that I won't, but it's really that I can't," he said.
"I'm not going to take a position that is contrary to the
Attorney General's office.
"That would just be blatant irresponsible of me, and I won't do
it."
A deal could be agreed between Fine Gael and Fianna Fil to
end the stand-off over water charges which this week
threatened to topple the minority government.
Both parties today lodged their submissions to the Oireachtas
Committee on the future of water services and water charges,
writes Juno McEnroe of the Irish Examiner.
Fine Gael want a so-called "excess charge" to remain where
households would be penalised for using over and above a
generous free allowance.
Fianna Fil though want to entirely scrap water charges and
housing spokesman Barry Cowen went as far this week as
warning that Housing Minister Simon Coveney would collapse
the government support deal if bills were not scrapped.
But in a surprise development today, Michel Martin's party
have paved the way for a deal to resolve the deadlock.
advertisement
Party sources told the Irish Examiner the party's submission to

the 20-member committee on water suggests that there could
be a way of assessing excess use.
The existing 2007 water legislation could be changed to allow
for a "statutory instrument" to be added or created which
would outline or assess what is "willful abuse" of water usage,
Fianna Fil sources said.
This measure may help both sides reach a compromise. The
committee has a small window to come to an agreement on its
report next week, ahead of a Dil vote on the future of water
charges by the end of March.
The Government have ruled out introducing any fresh
legislation which might breach EU laws.
Minister Coveney says the failure to legislate for an excess
charge would leave Ireland open to massive fines and break
the law.
Overhauling the existing the 2007 legislation to include excess
use or "willful abuse" of allowances may satisfy both sides and
break the deadlock between both parties.
Update 9.30am: It has been reported that families could
receive a refund on their water bills.
According to the Irish Independent, Fianna Fil and Fine Gael
have reached a compromise - following a week of turmoil on
the issue.
It is believed households will get back up to 325 under the
deal.
Earlier:
Sinn Fin has described the Taoiseach's comments on water
charges as "bogus".
Enda Kenny yesterday insisted Fine Gael will not facilitate any
laws to scrap all domestic water charges - which the party
says would be illegal.
The Oireachtas Committee discussing the future of water has
given parties until later today to make new proposals on
whether the public should be charged for excessive use.
"Well, the Taoiseach's comments from yesterday are
completely bogus," said Sinn Fein's spokesman on water is
Eoin O'Broin.
"Scotland has no domestic water charges and they are fully

compliant with EU law, Northern Ireland has no domestic
water charges and they are fully compliant with EU law.
"So, so as long as we meet the environmental objective
contained in EU legislation, which Sinn Fin believes we can,
then the issue of charges is irrelevant."
Now now Mr Coveney you are in a minority Government supported

by FF and FF in their manifesto pledged to abolish IW charges and
2/3rds of TDs elected to Dail on that basis.... Democracy has spoken
and the Power comes from the people & there are no laws here in
Ireland more important than our Irish Constitution
I hear FG on radio today calling FF stance "populist" but under our
Constitution the power comes from the people,that is what is known
as democracy.FG can ignore democracy all they like but voters have
spoken.
If they continue to try to dismiss this majority mandate given to Dail
then water etc will continue to be a major General Election issue!!
ARTICLE 9.3 states "NOTHING in this Article shall prevent the
funding of particular preventive or remedial measures in order to
achieve the objectives of this Directive"Couldn't be clearer but
Coveney says he has advise from AG that there must be water
charges even though this Article 9.3 contradicts that.
Also "Written question-Compliance with Article 9 of the Water
Framework Directive P-002540/2016
I'm presuming after the heavy rainfall today......
Everyone has filled their Swimming pools?
Subject: Compliance with Article 9 of the Water
Framework Directive Answer(s) ... under the Water
Framework Directive (WFD), ..
Assessment of Environmental and

Resource Costs in the Water
Framework Directive 2004
Information sheet prepared by Drafting Group
ECO2 Common Implementation Strategy, Working
Group 2B
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/5337253e-6f26-4d25-84f4-
34b2184f22cf/Final%20version%2005-07-04.pdf
Water Framework Directive - Government of

Gibraltar
Water Framework Directive Section 6 presents a summary
of the economic analysis of water use, as required by Article
9
https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/new/sites/default/files/HMGoG_Documen
ts/Gibraltar_River_Basin_Management_Plan_Public_Consultation_Mai
n_Report.pdf
Parliamentary questions
5 December 2014
P-008827/2014
Answer given by Mr Vella on behalf of the Commission
The responsibility for implementation of the Water Framework
Directive (WFD)(1) lies with the Member States and there is no
obligation to follow particular schemes or methods. However,
methodologies for calculation of cost recovery of water services do
exist(2) and are being developed further. For example there is work
under way within the Common Implementation Strategy for the WFD
implementation on further guidance on assessment of
environmental and resource costs.
There is no specific requirement in Art 9 of the WFD for cost

recovery to rely on individual consumption. However, for the
Commission, an adequate implementation of the principle of
incentive water pricing included in the provisions of Art 9, as well as
of the more general polluter-pays principle embedded in the
Treaties, requires a clear link between water tariffs and actual
individual water consumption. In this context, water metering seems
to be a basic precondition for proper implementation of the WFD.
The Human Right to Water and Reform of the Irish Water

Sector
Introduction
Despite the fact that the Irish water supply and sanitation
sector is currently undergoing its greatest ever
transformation, involving the introduction of water service
charges for private households and possibly, eventually
even some measure of privatization, it remains unclear
precisely what influence the ongoing discourse in
international law on the emerging human right to water
and sanitation might exert on the legal and institutional
arrangements to be put in place. While uncertainty
persists over the precise legal status and, to a lesser
extent, the normative content of the human right to water,
it is unclear by what means such a right might be invoked
under the existing Irish legal framework. No provision or
principle of Irish law constitutional, statutory or judge-
made expressly supports the right of access to adequate
and safe potable water or to adequate sanitation.
However, certain constitutional and statutory provisions,

might be interpreted so as to encapsulate and guarantee
key elements of the human right to water and sanitation.
The Constitution of Ireland has been interpreted to include
rights to bodily integrity and dignity, which might in some
circumstances be understood as guaranteeing a right of
access to water and sanitation. In addition, any effective
denial of such access might infringe rights provided under
either the European Convention on Human Rights or the
European Social Charter. Though the key legislative
measure applying to the provision of water services, the
2007 Water Services Act, does not confer any express
right on individuals to adequate water supply or
sanitation, it does confer broad powers on water services
authorities to provide both, while Regulations adopted
under the 2007 Act oblige water suppliers to ensure that
any water provided is wholesome and clean. There also
exists the possibility that elements of the human right to
water might be vindicated through the potential
availability of statutory or common law remedies against
water services authorities which fail to supply water of an
adequate standard or otherwise interfere with availability
of adequate water, for example by causing contamination.
Therefore, this article first examines the legal nature and

key normative requirements of the human right to water
which is rapidly emerging in international law, with a view
to understanding what it requires of national legal
systems. Secondly, it outlines the planned reforms of the
Irish water services sector and the legislative framework
intended to facilitate and regulate the new water services
providers. Finally, it analyses the Irish legal framework for
the regulation of water services and for protecting
individual rights to water in order to determine whether
and how it is likely to promote the realization of the values
inherent to the evolving discourse on the human right to
water.
The Emergence of the Human Right to Water (and

Sanitation) in International Law
A considerable degree of international consensus has now

been achieved, as regards the origins of the human right
of access to water in international law and its broad
normative content, with the adoption of General Comment
15 by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (CESCR) of the United Nations Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC). General Comment 15 represents the
CESCRs definitive position on the subject and is the first
recognition by a United Nations human rights body of an
independent and generally applicable human right to
water. Though CESCR general comments do not formally
impose legal obligations on the parties to the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR), let alone other States, General Comment 15
constitutes a non-binding but highly authoritative
interpretation of the Covenant and of the legal
implications which flow from key relevant Covenant
provisions. As a non-binding interpretation, General
Comment 15 may be used to determine whether States
have met their treaty obligations. In addition, it is today
possible to identify a significant body of recent State
practice supporting the existence of this right. Though a
human rights-based approach may be conceptualised in
terms of societys obligations to respond to the inalienable
rights of individuals, fundamental questions persist about
the normative status, substantive or procedural
requirements, and justiciability of the rapidly emerging
rights-based approach to water entitlements.
However, even at this stage in its legal development, it is
clear that the concept of a human right to water, in
addition to empowering individuals and communities by
means of enhanced rights of participation in water-related
decision-making, may potentially impact on key normative
requirements existing under national law.
Legal Bases
1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
In common with other general human rights instruments,

the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not
include an explicit reference to a human right to water,
but Article 25 proclaims that [E]veryone has the right to a
standard of living adequate for the health and well-being
of himself and his family, including food . It would
appear from this wording that the list of material
conditions required to sustain an adequate standard of
living is not intended to be exhaustive and McCaffrey
concludes that [I]t is obvious that water, even more than
food, is essential to health and well-being; it should
therefore be taken to be included by necessary
implication. Similarly, Gleick argues forcefully that water
must be implicitly included as one of component
elements for the maintenance of human health and well-
being under Article 25. The express reference to food in
Article 25 is also significant in terms of finding support for
the human right to water in the Declaration, as the CESCR
has consistently linked access to water to the right to food
in the context of Article 11(1) of the ICESCR.
While the Universal Declaration, which takes the form of a

U.N. General Assembly resolution, is not binding per se, it
is generally accepted that many of the basic human rights
contained therein have become part of customary
international law, or at least constitute authoritative
interpretations of the U.N. Charters provisions on human
rights, and thus bind States generally. However,
customary status is normally only accorded to the so-
called liberty rights contained in the Declaration, rather
than the welfare rights, of which the right to an adequate
standard of living is one. Therefore, it is highly unlikely
that the right to an adequate of living as set forth in the
Declaration, from which a human right to water might be
inferred, has attained the status of customary
international law.
In respect of economic, social and cultural rights more

generally, Article 22 of the Universal Declaration provides
that every one, as a member of society, is entitled to
realization of the economic, social and cultural rights
indispensable for his dignity and the free development of
his personality. Clearly any reference to human dignity
might easily be interpreted to include a right of access to
water and sanitation and General Comment 15 advises
that [T]he right [to water] should also be seen in
conjunction with other rights enshrined in the International
Bill of Human Rights, foremost among them the right to
life and human dignity. However, in reflecting on the
status of civil and political rights or of economic, social
and cultural rights set out under the Universal Declaration,
it is important to remember that the 1966 Covenants also
each form a component of the International Bill of Human
Rights, as the specific implementing instrument for each
category of right, and ought to be considered the primary
source of justiciable rights in each category.
1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

has linked the right to water to a number of fundamental
human rights, foremost among them the right to life and
human dignity. In relation to the right to life, it remains
unclear whether Article 6 of the 1966 International
Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) merely
protects against arbitrary deprivation of life by the State,
or also guarantees against death from such causes as lack
of water or food, exposure to the elements, or lack of
medical attention. Article 6 guarantees that [E]very
human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall
be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived
of his life, and it has traditionally been understood only to
extend to arbitrary deprivations of life by the State.
However, since 1982 the Human Rights Committee (HRC)
has interpreted the reference to the inherent right to life
in Article 6 to mean that the right to life includes a
socioeconomic component and demands positive action
by states. Clearly, the obligation of States to take
positive measures might be expected to include
providing access to the means of sustaining life.
Therefore, the Committee has determined that the right to
life includes the conditions necessary to support life,
including the appropriate means of subsistence. This
would readily imply an obligation on States to ensure
some access to clean water. Further, the various
references in General Comment 6 to infant mortality, life
expectancy, malnutrition and epidemics are strongly
suggestive of the right to water as a lack of adequate
water has consistently been linked to these problems. Of
course, the problem would remain that a broad
interpretation raises questions as to what exact action is
required.
However, the Parties to the ICCPR are under an immediate

obligation as regards the rights contained therein, as each
State undertakes to respect and to ensure to all
individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction
the rights recognized in the present Covenant. This
contrasts sharply with the less immediate, progressive
obligations imposed under the ICESCR. McCaffrey
suggests that the difference in the approach to the
enforceability of rights under the two 1966 Covenants
provides further evidence that welfare rights, including
any inferred right to water, were never intended to receive
protection under the ICCPR. He concludes that it is
doubtful that States have accepted an immediate
obligation i.e., not one that may be implemented
progressively to take positive measures to guarantee
their citizens appropriate subsistence (including water)
and a decent standard of life. In light of the
considerations set out above, McCaffrey concludes
generally that the right to water flows more naturally
from Article 11 of the ICESCR.
International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural

Rights
As General Comment 15 essentially consists of an
interpretation of Articles 11 and 12 of the 1966
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR), it is not surprising that it should
conclude that the emergence of the human right to water
in general international law can primarily be traced to
these two Articles. Firstly, Article 11(1) of the Covenant,
which provides for the right to an adequate standard of
living, sets out a non-exhaustive list of related rights which
emanate from and are indispensable for the realisation of
that right including adequate food, clothing and housing.
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(CESCR) of the United Nations Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC) has, through adoption and publication
of its seminal position paper on the subject, General
Comment 15, given its unequivocal support to the
existence of a right to water, concluding that [T]he right
to water clearly falls within the category of guarantees
essential for securing an adequate standard of living,
particularly since it is one of the most fundamental
conditions for survival. Indeed, one view suggests that
water is such a fundamental requirement for an adequate
standard of living that its formal inclusion under Article 11
was unnecessary. In this context, General Comment 15
notes the importance of ensuring sustainable access to
water resources for agriculture to realize the right to
adequate food and also takes note of the duty in Article
1(2) of the Covenant, which provides that a people may
not be deprived of its means of subsistence. The CESCR
had earlier determined that the right to adequate housing
should include sustainable access to safe drinking water,
site drainage, sanitation and washing facilities.
The Committee has also found that the right to water is

inextricably linked to the right to the highest attainable
standard of health, enshrined under Article 12(1) of the
Covenant. The relevant text of Article 12 provides:
The States Parties to the Present Covenant recognize the
right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health. The
steps to be taken to achieve the full realization of this
right shall include those necessary for (3) The
prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic,
occupational and other diseases.
General Comment 15 acknowledges the significance of
clean, safe water for hygiene and health, stating that
Environmental hygiene, as an aspect of the right to health
under article 12, paragraph 2(b), of the Covenant,
encompasses taking steps on a non-discriminatory basis
to prevent threats to health from unsafe and toxic water
conditions.
Gleick insists that access to water can readily be inferred
as a derivative right necessary to meet both the explicit
rights to health and an adequate standard of living and
cites in support of this contention the following emphatic
inclusion of a legally binding right to water by
commentators in their 1999 review of human rights
progress over the past 50 years:
There is nothing ill-defined or fuzzy about being deprived
of the basic human rights to food and clean water . As
for legal toughness, the simple fact is that the 138
governments which have ratified the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have a
legal obligation to ensure that their citizens enjoy these
rights.
However, the ICESCR, and any rights derived therefrom,

suffer from a clear lack of immediate enforceability, with
Article 2(1) merely requiring each State party to take
steps to the maximum of its available resources, with a
view to achieving progressively the full realization of the
rights recognized in the present Covenant. As one
commentator has noted in relation to such second
generation rights, [T]he principal challenge is therefore
linking the expectations of individuals as rights-holders
with the duties owed by others. At the level of the
practical enforceability of the obligations set out under the
ICESCR, McCaffrey points out the language of Article 2(1)
would provide a lawyer acting for a State accused of
breaching its obligations with ample bases for a defense.
However, in relation to the package of obligations set out
in General Comment 15 as inherent to the right to water,
Tully concedes that several obligations namely non-
discrimination and undertaking deliberate, concrete and
targeted steps are amenable to immediate
implementation. In the case of a number of such core
obligations, expressly identified in General Comment 15 in
relation to the right to water, the CESCR has earlier
characterised these as being non-derogable and of
immediate effect. The latter obligation identified by
Tully, i.e., to take steps to the maximum of its available
resources, has been characterised as one of due
diligence, which McCaffrey regards as one that accords
with reality.
Binding International Conventions
General Comment 15 also notes that the right to water, at

least as it would apply in a number of specific contexts,
has been recognised in a range of binding and non-binding
instruments of international law. Of greatest significance
are a number of more specialised binding instruments,
including the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Article
14(2) of which requires that States parties ensure to
women the right to enjoy adequate living conditions,
particularly in relation to water supply, and the 1989
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Article 24(2)
(c) of which requires States parties to combat disease and
malnutrition through the provision of adequate nutritious
foods and clean drinking water. Hardberger speculates
that CEDAW may have included an express allusion to
water due to the fact that women are generally
responsible for gathering water and that [W]omen are
also the group most negatively affected by lack of
adequate water for hygiene. She also highlights
preambular and other supportive text in the CRC and
points out that Article 6 of the CRC goes further than
simply providing that States Parties recognize that every
child has the inherent right to life but, in contrast to the
Universal Declaration, further requires that States ensure
survival of the child to the maximum extent possible.
Substantive / Normative Content

General Comment 15 explains that the right to water
consists of both freedoms and entitlements, the former
including the right to be free from interference, such as
the right to be free from arbitrary disconnections or
contamination of water supplies, the latter including the
right to a system of water supply and management that
provides equality of opportunity for people to enjoy the
right to water. Essentially, the elements of the right to
water must be adequate for human dignity, life and
health, in accordance with articles 11, paragraph 1, and
12, and General Comment 15 elaborates further, stating
that the relevant factors in determining such adequacy
include availability, quality and accessibility. The
requirement of availability stipulates that States ensure a
sufficient and continuous supply of water for such personal
and domestic uses as drinking, personal sanitation,
washing of clothes, food preparation, and personal and
household hygiene, in a quantity which corresponds to
World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines. Quality
refers to the safety of water, in terms of the absence of
micro-organisms, chemical substances and radiological
hazards potentially dangerous to human health, and to
available water being of an acceptable colour, odour and
taste for each personal and domestic use. The
requirement of accessibility stipulates that water facilities
and services should be accessible to everyone without
discrimination and has regard to physical accessibility,
including physical security, gender and cultural factors
and proximity to households, educational institutions and
workplaces, economic accessibility, including the issue of
affordability, non-discrimination, including accessibility to
the most vulnerable and marginalized sections of the
population, and information accessibility, including the
right to seek, receive and impart information on water
issues. The CESCR places special emphasis on the issues
of non-discrimination and equality of access and makes
particular mention of a number of individuals and groups
who have traditionally faced difficulties in exercising this
right, including women; children; rural and deprived
urban areas; indigenous peoples; nomadic and traveller
communities; refugees, asylum-seekers, internally
displaced persons and returnees; prisoners and detainees;
groups facing difficulties with physical access, such as
older persons and persons with disabilities, etc.
General Comment 15 sets out the nature of the States

Parties obligations arising by virtue of the right to water
inherent in the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights and explains that, [W]hile the Covenant provides
for progressive realization and acknowledges the
constraints due to the limits of available resources, it also
imposes on States parties various obligations which are of
immediate effect, including the obligation to guarantee
the right without discrimination and to take deliberate,
concrete and targeted steps towards the full realisation of
the right. The nature of the latter obligation is clarified by
explaining that [T]here is a strong presumption that
retrogressive measures taken in relation to the right to
water are prohibited under the Convention.
In essence, the CESCR identifies three types of specific

legal obligations, i.e obligations to respect, to protect and
to fulfil the right to water. Obligations to respect include
those requiring States to refrain from interfering with
access to water or water services, from unlawfully
diminishing or polluting water, or from destroying water
services and infrastructure. Obligations to protect include
those requiring the State to prevent third parties, which
includes individuals, groups and corporations, from
interfering with enjoyment of the right to water by denying
equal access to, polluting or inequitably extracting water
resources. Further, where such third parties operate or
control water services or infrastructure, States are obliged
to prevent them from compromising equal, affordable,
and physical access to sufficient, safe and acceptable
water. Clearly this obligation requires the adoption of the
necessary legislation to establish an effective regulatory
system. Obligations to fulfil include a wide range of
obligations to require States to facilitate, promote and
provide, such as the promotion of education concerning
the hygienic use and environmental protection of water,
the provision of appropriate low-cost technologies
involving appropriate pricing policies, and the reduction of
waste and promotion of efficiency in water use.
In addition, one can also understand the emergence in
international law of a human
rightsbased approach to water and sanitation
entitlements as an expression of universally accepted
standards of global governance, rather than as an
enforceable human right in any strict sense of that term.
This approach addresses many of the difficulties which
arise in relation to the precise normative status of the
human right to water under international law as well as
doubts concerning its enforceability by means of the
traditional enforcement mechanisms existing under
human rights law. Indeed, a survey of the commonly
accredited sources of rules of global administrative law
helps to make sense of the wide diversity of mechanisms,
in addition to the formal
conventional obligations and practice of States, for the
generation of rules and standards
which inform the procedural and substantive normative
content of the human right to water. Such mechanisms
include, for example, the International Organization for
Standardization, various voluntary codes of corporate
conduct, national systems of administrative or
environmental law, and of course the institutional
machinery which elaborates upon human rights values.
Such an analysis permits conclusions to be drawn on the
key elements of the human right to water, including
procedural and due process requirements, the key rule of
law values, the key good governance values (relating
particularly to transparency, participation and
accountability), and the key human rights values
impacting upon the concept. This mode of analysis goes
some way towards identifying the rights and obligations
created by the human right to water for a variety of
actors, including individuals, vulnerable communities,
transnational corporations, investors in water and
sanitation services, and of course State agencies.
Reform of the Irish Water Services Sector
The EU/IMF Memorandum of Understanding, which was

concluded with Ireland in 2009 and sets the terms of
Irelands financial bail-out, requires that Ireland make
sweeping changes to the water services sector, primarily
with a view to introducing charges for domestic water
services in 2012 or 2013. This measure is one among a
wide range of structural reforms intended to underpin
Irelands economic stability. In addition, it is quite clear
that Irish water-related infrastructure and services
urgently require considerable improvement by means of
capital investment. In terms of water quality, for example,
a 2011 report by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) outlines the further investments required in order
for Ireland to meet the water quality targets mandated by
2015 under the EU Water Framework Directive. Indeed,
the Irish Government estimate that the cost to the
exchequer of providing water services reached 1.2 billion
in 2010, with operational costs amounting to 715 million
and capital costs amounting to 500 million, and is
committed to effecting a transition to a non-Exchequer
based funding model by the start of 2014. In addition to
a number of recent high-profile incidents concerning
public health risks, most notably due to contamination of
water supplies by cryptosporidium, the current system of
water services provision is regarded as inefficient and
wasteful, with average water leakage levels estimated at
41 per cent, far above the level of 10 per cent considered
to be a realistic international target. Further, the number
of people employed in the provision of water services in
Ireland is 25 per cent higher than the UK median and
operating costs per connection are more expensive than in
the UK or Northern Ireland by 50-100 per cent.
Therefore, the current Programme for Government

includes a commitment to install household water meters
and move to a charging system, as well as to establish a
new State water utility company, Irish Water, to take
over the investment and maintenance programmes of the
34 existing local water services authorities. A report
commissioned on the establishment and role of Irish Water
and the related Position Paper issued by the Department
of Environment, Community and Local Government have
recommended that it should be established as a public
utility with full statutory responsibility for the introduction
of water metering and customer billing for water charges,
for investing in and operating water services
infrastructure, and for sourcing private finance for
investment in capital projects. The full transfer of
operations from water services authorities / local
authorities to Irish Water is intended to be completed by
the end of 2017. Irish Water will be regulated in respect of
its impacts on the natural environment by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and will be subject
to economic regulation by the Commission for Energy
Regulation (CER), which will oversee the setting of tariffs
for water supply and sanitation services. The recently
established New Economic and Recovery Authority
(NewERA) will have responsibility for reviewing the capital
investment plans of commercial semi-state companies,
including Irish Water.
The commitment under the EU/IMF Memorandum of

Understanding regarding the introduction of domestic
water charges will merely bring Ireland into line with the
obligation under the EU Water Framework Directive for EU
Member States to take account of the principle of
recovery of the costs of water services in accordance in
particular with the polluter pays principle in setting water
prices, in respect of which Ireland currently avails,
somewhat questionably, of an exemption. It is intended
that domestic water charges will only be levied for water
used in excess of a free allowance which is to be provided
to every household, though no decision has yet been
taken on the level of free allowance to be provided or on
such details as how it might take account of such factors
as large households. Pending the universal installation of
domestic water meters, the Government has not rejected
the possibility that flat water charges might be imposed as
an interim measure.
The EU/IMF Memorandum of Understanding does not,

however, require the privatization of any aspect of the
Irish water sector and the current Water Services Act,
2007 (as amended) provides three levels of safeguards to
ensure continuing democratic control over the sector.
Section 27 provides that the Minister may only transfer
any of his or her own functions or the water services
authorities functions to a private operator if he or she is
satisfied that democratic accountability for the function
concerned will be ensured. Under section 31(12), a water
services authority cannot contract with private operators
where this would involve the transfer of the authoritys
assets or infrastructure to that private operator. Finally,
under Article 40(7), a water services authority which
contracts out its services to a private operator will
continue to be responsible for the compliance of those
services with the requirements of this Act. However,
there would appear to be every likelihood private entities
acquiring some form of interest in water services
infrastructure when once considers that one of the
Governments key reasons for establishing Irish Water as a
public utility is that with this model [b]orrowing capacity
[is] higher than other models allowing the entity to
become self-funding sooner, and that the new Water
Services Investment Programme for the period 2010-2012
includes 360 contracts to commence in the period at a
cost of 1.8 billion with the value of schemes in planning
amounting to 3 billion. The fact that the current
reforms will move water services from municipal and
central authorities to a (State-owned) commercial
enterprise, will involve the installation of meters in 1.3
million homes to facilitate domestic charging, and will
create a customer-supplier relationship between the water
utility and every water user in the State, will
understandably cause many to speculate that privatisation
of the water utility might become attractive in the future.
Under the current Irish legislative framework, charges for

domestic users of water and sanitation services are
prohibited by section 105 of the Water Services Act,
though this section has not been commenced. Section 17
of the 2007 Act, however, empowers the Minister to
introduce by regulation a financial assistance scheme for
any person specifying, inter alia, the amounts of
assistance and the eligibility criteria for such assistance.
The Act does not provide for a waiver scheme for low-
income domestic water users, along the lines of that
available for publicly-provided waste collection schemes,
although it does provide for a waiver for non-domestic
users where the water services authority is satisfied that it
is appropriate to do so on grounds of personal hardship or
quality of water supplied. Thus current legislation would
appear to allow for a scheme of financial assistance along
the lines of the UK Watersure scheme, but new or
amending legislation would be required for any waiver
scheme. The Governments 2012 Position Paper merely
states that further work will be undertaken in respect of
the approaches to be deployed to support low income
households in relation to domestic water charges.
A key question in respect of the water services charging

scheme proposed by the Irish Government is that of the
extent of any free allowance granted either per capita or
per household. Whereas Irish people are estimated to use
150 litres of water per captia per day (l/c/d) and people in
the Netherlands 124 l/c/d, one international expert has
estimated that domestic requirements and water
requirements for maintaining a water efficient non-
agricultural economy capable of sustaining a high level of
human development could be satisfied by 135 l/c/d,
including water distribution losses of 10-15 l/c/d. The PwC
Phase 1 Water Report commissioned by the Government
cites two regimes which provide for free allowances, that
of 41 l/c/d in the Flanders region of Belguim, and that of
25 l/c/d in the South African municipality of Johannesburg,
though it should be noted that in Flanders there is also a
standing charge for water, while in Johannesburg, and in
other South African municipalities, the quantum of water
provided under the free basic allowance has regularly
been the subject of litigation. While neither the World
Health Organisation (WHO) nor any other relevant UN
agency has provided guidance on the minimum quantity
of domestic water required to safeguard human health,
one leading international commentator has proposed that
50 l/c/d constitutes a basic domestic water requirement,
and an independent report on UK water charging policy
from 2011 appears to support this figure by
recommending that low-income households with more
than one child be given a discount amounting to the
equivalent of 50 litres of water each day for each child.
Indeed, it appears that a free allowance in Ireland of
around 60 l/c/d has been suggested at an Inaugural
Summit on Water Metering in 2011.
The Human Right to Water (and Sanitation) in Irish Law
While Ireland is a party to the 1966 International Covenant

on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), from
which the purported human right to water (and sanitation)
derives, and has stated its intention to sign up to the
Optional Protocol to the ICESCR, which is intended to
establish a complaints procedure to which individuals will
be able to bring complaints concerning violations of their
economic, social and cultural rights, it has declined to
support the UN General Assemblys 2010 Resolution on
the Human Right to Water and Sanitation, abstaining in
the General Assembly vote which was carried by 122
States in favour and 41 abstentions, with no States voting
against. Neither has Ireland expressly recognized such a
right by virtue of any domestic law instrument, legislative
or constitutional, though elements inherent to the human
right to water might be guaranteed under certain statutes
or may come to be protected through further elaboration
of unenumerated rights under Article 40.3 of the
Constitution. It also seems highly unlikely that EU water-
related and environmental directive or European Social
Charter provide a justiciable basis for this emerging right.
A Constitutional Right to Water (and Sanitation)?
The two key values identified under the Irish constitution

which might function to support the existence of a human
right to water are those of bodily integrity and dignity.
According to Danielle Conaghan,
the constitutional rights to bodily integrity and dignity,
respectively, could be interpreted in light of the Preamble
(and the directive principles of social policy) as
encompassing a right to water and sanitation, given that
access to both is essential to sustain human health and
life.
In 1965, the Irish High Court famously held that, had it
been convinced that fluoride added to the public water
supply was hazardous to human health, it would have
found the statute providing for the addition of fluoride
unconstitutional as a violation of the plaintiffs right to
bodily integrity. This unspecified personal right to bodily
integrity recognized by Kenny J in Ryan v. Attorney General
as arising under Article 40.3.2 of the Constitution can now
be understood as a prohibition on any State authority
imposing or supplying a service which is dangerous to the
life or health of any person. The right to safe, adequate
and affordable access to water and sanitation services
might easily be found to fall within the scope of the
constitutional right to bodily integrity or of another of the
many personal rights of the citizen which flow from the
Christian and democratic nature of the State which are not
mentioned in Article 40 at all envisaged by Kenny J.
In turn, the preambular objective of assuring the dignity

and freedom of the individual has been described as
being among the most laudable objects, which are to
inform the various Articles of the Constitution. Further,
this express objective would appear to have been
complemented by the Supreme Courts recognition in Re a
Ward of Court (No. 2) of a right to dignity amongst the
unenumerated rights protected by the Constitution, where
the Court included, among the factors to be taken into
account in determining the best interests of a person in a
long-term persistent vegetative state, the rights to bodily
integrity and to dignity in life. Denham J. stated that [a]n
unspecified right under the constitution to all persons as
human persons is dignity to be treated with dignity.
Though there has been little judicial analysis of the scope
or potential implications of a constitutional right to dignity,
[b]oth Denham J. and OFlaherty J. appeared to consider
that a right to dignity could be impaired by external
factors. Also, it is noteworthy in the context of the right
of access to adequate sanitation that the constitutional
notion of dignity is strongly associated with the right to
privacy.
Of course, the constitutional guarantee of equality set
down in Article 40.1 of the Constitution might also be
relevant in ensuring access to water and sanitation
services for minorities or other vulnerable groups, such as
members of the Traveller community. Once again, the
notion of human dignity is central and Walsh J. noted in
Quinns Supermarket v. Attorney General that this
provision is not a guarantee of absolute equality for all
citizens in all circumstances but it is a guarantee of
equality as human persons and is a guarantee related
to their dignity as human beings. Further, Denham J.
stated in Re a Ward of Court (No. 2) that the concept of
equality guaranteed under Article 40.1 is not a restricted
concept, it does not mean solely that legislation should
not be discriminatory. It is a positive proposition. Thus
Article 40.1 imposes a positive obligation upon the State
to take legislative measures to protect and promote
effective equality between different groups within society
and, by so doing, to eliminate indirect discrimination in
access to water and sanitation services. In the case of
Travellers or other vulnerable or marginalized groups, the
notion of autonomy might also be relevant. In recent
years the courts have placed considerable emphasis on
autonomy as a constitutionally protected value which is
inherent to the rights to liberty and due process and which
was recognised by the Supreme Court as a distinct
personal right in Re a Ward of Court (No. 2).
In addition, Article 45 of the Constitution sets forth the

directive principles of social policy which, though not
directly applicable by any court in testing the
constitutionality of a legislative measure, are intended for
the general guidance of the Oireachtas and have been
taken account of in certain circumstances. Article 45.4.1
notes that [t]he State pledges itself to safeguard with
especial care the economic interests of the weaker
sections of the community and, where necessary, to
contribute to the support of the infirm, the widow, the
orphan, and the aged, while Article 45.4.2 provides that
[t]he State shall endeavor to ensure that the strength and
health of workers, men and women, and the tender age of
children shall not be abused. Clearly, such principles
might assist the courts in interpreting the rights outlined
above in a manner which would provide the greatest
possible protection for vulnerable individuals and
communities in an era of charging for water and sanitation
services, consistent with the requirements of General
Comment No. 15.
The emergence of the human right to water in

international law might itself play a role in the
interpretation and application of the above constitutional
protections. Though, in the event of a conflict between
the provisions of an international convention and any
provision within the domestic legal framework, the
domestic rule will be given effect in accordance with
Article 29(6) and Article 15.2.1, the courts have on a
number of occasions been willing, in the absence of such
conflict, to consider the provisions of international
instruments to which the State is a party with a view to
informing their understanding of the applicable
constitutional standards. For example, in State (Healy) v.
Donoghue, the Supreme Court had regard to Article 6 of
the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which
Ireland had ratified but not incorporated into the domestic
legal system, when considering the scope of the right to
legal aid under Irish law. Therefore, the Court was willing
to have regard to an unincorporated international
instrument in interpreting the constitutional right to a trial
in due course of law as protected in Article 38, and of the
guarantees set out in Article 40.3 of the Constitution.
Similarly, in considering the constitutional status of the
presumption of innocence pursuant to Article 38, Costello J
in OLeary v. Attorney General reviewed the status
afforded to the presumption under both Article 6(2) of the
ECHR and Article 11 of the Universal Declaration on
Human Rights (UDHR), to conclude that
by construing the Constitution in the light of
contemporary concepts of fundamental rights (as I am
entitled to do: see State (Healy) v. Donoghue) the
plaintiffs claim obtains powerful support.
The provisions of unincorporated international

instruments, such as the 1966 ICESCR, may also become
relevant through the operation of a presumption of
compatibility of domestic law with international
obligations. In State (DPP) v. Walsh, Henchy J. expressed
the view that domestic laws were generally presumed to
be in conformity with the then unincorporated ECHR, an
approach endorsed by OHanlon J. in Desmond v. Glackin
(No. 1), who took the view that the provisions of the
ECHR, then unincorporated, ought to be considered by
Irish judges in determining what public policy actually was.
Similarly, Finlay Geoghan J. in Nwole v. Minister for Justice,
held that
The provisions of the Refugee Act of 1996 [regarding the
processing of applications for asylum] must be construed,
and its operation applied by the authorities, in accordance
with the Convention on the Rights of the Child which has
been ratified by Ireland.
It is worth noting that the Convention on the Rights of the
Child is one of a number of instruments commonly cited in
support of the existence of a human right to water under
international law.
Statutory Right to Water (and Sanitation)?
Under the existing 2007 Water Services Act, there is no

clear legal duty placed on any State authority to provide
water and sanitation services. Under section 30, the
Minister is placed under a general duty to facilitate the
provision of safe and efficient water services and
wastewater infrastructure and has overall responsibility for
the monitoring and supervision of the water services
authorities in the carrying out of their functions. Section
31 sets down the various powers of the water services
authorities and section 31(2) provides that a water
services authority may provide water services in
accordance with any prescribed standards. Section 32
states that water services authorities are entitled to take
all such necessary measures to ensure compliance with
their obligations under section 31, including the treatment
and supply of drinking water and the provision, operation
or maintenance of sewers and wastewater collection and
treatment facilities. Water services authorities are only
obliged to take these measures if directed to do so by the
Minister under section 31(3). On a detailed examination
of the legislation, Conaghan concludes that the intention
of the Oireachtas was that there should be no duty on
water services providers to provide water services, in the
absence of a Ministerial request or regulations requiring
them to provide same. Likewise, there are no
requirements for the provision of toilet facilities in public
places, although water services authorities have a general
power to provide such facilities. Part H of the 1997
Building Regulations do not specify the provision of toilets
in various kinds of buildings, but a myriad of legislative
provisions specify in details the requirements in respect of
restaurants, workplaces, mines and quarries, nursing
homes, construction sites, etc. Toilet facilities are
normally required for funfairs and events permitted under
Part XVI of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
Water services authorities are required, under section 36

of the 2007 Act to prepare strategic plans setting
objectives for, and specifying measures required for, the
protection of human health and the environment, the
provision of sufficient water services for domestic and
non-domestic requirements in the area to which the plan
relates, and to support proper planning and sustainable
development, including sustainable use of water
resources. In so doing, they are required to ensure
compliance with a host of EU water-related directives
notably including the 2000 Water Framework Directive and
the 1991 Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive.
However, where they do provide water services, water

services authorities are under a duty to ensure that the
water meets the relevant and applicable quality
standards, such as those applying under the European
Communities (Drinking Water) (No. 2) Regulations 2007.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has primary
responsibility for monitoring the compliance of water
services authorities with the prescribed water quality
standards for human consumption and for enforcing
compliance with these standards. While the EPA acts as
the supervisory authority for services authorities, the
authorities themselves supervise any other person
providing water services within their functional area and
may apply to the High Court for an injunction to require a
person to comply with a direction given. The EPA and
water services authorities are also entitled to bring
prosecutions under the Drinking Water Regulations, while
the water services authorities may prosecute any person
under the 2007 Act who causes or permits water in any
waterworks or service connection to become polluted.
Generally, there exists a comprehensive, if confusing,

array of statutory provisions for safeguarding the quality
of water intended for human consumption. However,
there also exist a number of statutory provisions to restrict
access to water supply, which might prove questionable in
the light of the emerging human right to water. For
example, section 55 of the 2007 Water Services Act makes
it an offence to connect illegally to a water supply without
obtaining the consent of the water services authority.
While this provision is primarily intended to protect the
integrity of the water supply, it might have implications
for access to water by non-settled communities. The
absolute right to connect to a public sewer was abolished
in 1990 and it is now necessary to get permission from the
appropriate water services authority under section 61 of
the 2007 Act. Any person who has obtained planning
permission for a development under the Planning and
Development Act 2000 will be deemed to have the right to
connect to the public sewer if the permission so provides.
A person may, of course, be required to connect to a
public sewer under section 61. Similarly, under section
31(19) of the 2007 Act a statutory right to water services
is expressly stated not to exist in relation either to
unauthorized structures or to the unauthorized uses of
structures. Under section 56(16), water services
authorities are entitled to restrict or prohibit water use
where they are of the opinion that a serious deficiency of
available water exists or is likely to exist in its functional
area, and it has the power to issue conservation notices
and emergency notices to assist in conservation. Water
services authorities are granted immunity under section
56(12) from any liability arising from the consequences of
restricting or cutting off water supply.
Whereas the Minister has the power to serve a compliance

notice on a water services authority under section 30(7) of
the 2007 Act where that authority is not performing its
functions satisfactorily or is in breach of a prescribed
performance standard, the 2007 Act does not give
individuals the power to request that such action be taken
by the Minister. Similarly, the EPA has extensive
supervisory powers under the 2007 Drinking Water (No. 2)
Regulations. For example, where water quality does not
meet prescribed standards, the EPA may direct a water
services authority to prepare and implement an Action
programme, may apply to the High Court for an injunction
to require the authority to comply with a direction given,
and may also prosecute the authority, but there would
appear to be no role for individuals in either process.
(Preliminary) Conclusions
Any new statutory framework for the provision of water

and sanitation services will need carefully to address each
of the following key issues:
1. Metering:
a. Realistic plans for effective roll-out;
b. Installation charges;
c. Interim flat-charges (large households)
2. Free Allowance:
a. Quantum
b. Household / individual
3. Affordability:
a. Assessing affordability
b. Differential free allowances
c. Welfare supplements: [Social Welfare Law]
d. Waivers
e. Progressive charging
4. Disconnection:
a. Safeguards: appeals
b. Guidelines
5. Connection:
a. Vulnerable people / transient communities: [Planning
and Development Law; Residential Tenancy Law; etc.]
6. Governance:
a. Transparency, participation, reviewability and
accountability
implementation of the Water Framework

Directive in Europe 2016
Irvine,K.,andS.OBrien.2009.Progressonstakeholderparticipationinthe
implementationoftheWaterFrameworkDirectiveintheRepublicofIreland.
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE

COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ...
The Czech Republic, Ireland, ... registration under the Waste
Framework Directive ... transposition and implementation
of Directive
https://www.eumonitor.nl/9353000/1/j9vvik7
m1c3gyxp/vi7jgt3pjjzr
implementation and on stakeholder involvement in the ...
Northern Ireland 2 Teagasc, Republic of ... objectives under
the Water Framework Directive
http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/lec/sites/catchmen
tchange/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/CCN-
full-programme_abstracts_FINAL.pdf
UK ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS AND
CONDITIONS (PHASE 2) Final
UK ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS (PHASE
2 ... Republic of Ireland's Department of Environment ... The
Water Framework Directive3 sets out objective
http://wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media/Envi
ronmental%20standards/Environmental
%20standards%20phase
%202_Final_110309.pdf
Groundwater hazardous
substances standards
The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and Groundwater
Daughter Directive (2006/118/EC) (GDD) require Member States to
prevent inputs of hazardous substances into groundwater subject to
various exemptions
UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water
Framework Directive Technical report on
Groundwater Hazardous Substances
http://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media
/UKTAG_Technical%20report_GW_Haz-
Subs_ForWebfinal.pdf
AND the Oscar DIDN'T go to Irish Water feeling amused.

Axing of Water Charges Is Within EU Law'

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Axing of Water Charges Is Within EU Law'

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Axing of water charges is within EU

In lengthy legal advice published last night, Michel

Concerns raised on lack of separation

Fears have been raised by some residents and businesses

The Department of Housing and Local Government

Families 'could see water charges

According to the Irish Independent, Fianna Fil and Fine

It is believed households will get back up to 325 under

Sinn Fin has described the Taoiseach's comments on

Enda Kenny yesterday insisted Fine Gael will not facilitate

The Oireachtas Committee discussing the future of water

"Well, the Taoiseach's comments from yesterday are

"So, so as long as we meet the environmental objective

Fianna Fils Barry Cowen speaking outside Leinster

A clean and safe water supply is vital for our economic

A couple of years ago, I based an Irish Examiner column

The 33-page document opines that it is open to Ireland to ban or

The European Commission wrote to the independent

Senior Ministers have supported Simon Coveneys position on the water

Amid chants of fascists, Dublin City Council passed a motion

Sinn Fin and a number of other left leaning groupings

Fianna Fil has submitted its policy paper on water to the

It reaffirms that funding of domestic water services

Fianna Fil legal

The 33-page document opines that it is open to Ireland to ban or

The European Commission wrote to the independent

Coveney rules out

He said a district metering system would pick this up

Live: Political updates

O'Dea wants to see Attorney General's advice

A motion calling for a referendum repealing the Eigth

Earlier, Taoiseach Enda Kenny said repealing the

Simon Coveney Says

Latest Water charges 'finished' as

In dramatic developments, Oireachtas committee water

The move means that the Dil will be recommended to

Mr O'Broin said this meant that water charges were

While the committee has yet to make a formal statement

Mr O'Broin's comments were echoed earlier by AAA-PBP

The committee has yet to decide how charges will be

"This is a victory for Irish people," declared deputy

Update 11.19am: Labour TD Joan Burton has said that a

People who in good faith paid their water charges and

The question then of how that might be refunded my

Update 10.25am: Sinn Fin spokesperson on water, Eoin

Speaking ahead of the meeting of the Oireachtas

The idea of an excess charge is a Trojan horse and is

The excess charge itself could cost more to administer

A report from the committee of TDs examining how to

According to the Irish Times, the group agrees people

The Junior Minister behind a new Commission into an

Mr Noonan was Minister for Health during a time when a

This afternoon Junior Minister Finian McGrath says he is

Inclusion Ireland is claiming that people with intellectual

The group says successive reports have highlighted the

The Taoiseach Enda Kenny and the HSE today apologised

The Government is to set up a Commission of

Mr Connolly said: "The abuse of not getting out for many

"There is not sufficient energy from Government, the HSE,

She claimed Northern Irelands constitutional future would

A spokesperson for the Garda Press Office confirmed

The incident allegedly occurred on February 15 last

Garda were alerted by concerned members of the public