Whether Irish Water survives or not, and ‘efficient’ water plan is needed

Only two weeks have passed since the election. Red-line issues are being abandoned in the rush to get back into the government Mercedes. 

Yet again, our politicians are showing us the weakness of their convictions, as per the outgoing government and Irish Water, and its elimination or otherwise.

The excuse is that the people have spoken and must be heard.

However, whilst the people have spoken, we are still not sure of what they have said.

Any assessment of elected TDs, constituency by constituency, would suggest that the people have said an awful lot of things. Water-charging is just one issue among them.

For very many of us, reform of the Dail, the relationship between it and the government, and a government held to account on behalf of the people, are far more important.

Unfortunately, for our politicians, and particularly for Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, Irish Water is one of the most difficult issues, because of the implications for EU agreements and potential fines resulting from any backtracking, the millions spent to date, the jobs of thousands of employees, the problems with water wastage and an obsolete distribution network, and even government’s relationship with the unions.

Additionally, whilst water charges were already in the minds of our politicians, it then became a creature of the Troika. Water charges were introduced to meet one of its many demands.

Last week, Unite’s Brendan Ogle declared: “Irish Water is dead”.

His view was based on the fact that 99 TDs do not agree with it.

Whether it’s a party whip or Dail reform and greater accountability, most of our TD’s will not rock the boat and will do as they are told.

However, even if, and it’s a big if, Irish Water is put out of its misery, it does not mean water charges are dead.

The can may be kicked up the road a wee bit, but that’s about it.

The reason being simple, and that is that the implications and the costs are far too great.

Even the unions are not agreed on Irish Water’s elimination. As always, vested interests prevail.

There’s an old saying: ‘marry in haste and repent at leisure’. Irish Water was clearly not properly thought-out and we are repenting at leisure.

There’s another old saying, which goes ‘a camel is a horse designed by committee’.

This means something will be over-designed, incorporating everything to accommodate the views of the committee, and frequently will miss out on key aspects, such as why it is being designed in the first place.

The official rationale behind Irish Water, besides accommodating the Troika, was to upgrade our appalling water network, upgrade our sanitary network, guarantee clean and potable water for all, as well as conserving water.

It is clear, from the way Irish Water was established, that the rationale for its creation was very far from the blueprint when it was dreamt up.

It is, for all intents, ‘not fit for purpose’.

However, water charges are here to stay, despite what Brendan Ogle and his friends might say.

When water was included as part of our taxes, it was at a time when our taxes were considerably higher than they are even now.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, they were nothing less than penal. I know that was then and this is now.

However, whether we like it or not, demands on water are ever greater and that is not going away.

Places like Dublin are close to drought status on a regular basis, and are looking to guarantee supply from as far away as the Shannon basin.

Our water network is so obsolete, from lack of investment, that it is bordering on criminal.

The quality of water we are able to deliver is problematic in many parts of the country, as we’ve seen from the ‘boil notices’.

The very best we can expect, now, is that government and its helpers get a large dose of ‘cop on’, temporarily shelve the charges, if we can get the EU to ignore any penalties, and put in place a structure that is cost-effective and efficient.

It should not be a home for semi-retired senior public servants, and should be one that will consider, in the first instance, the rationale for its being rather than the perks that may accrue to its employees.