Opposition Stage Collective Dáil Walkout as Gov Guillotines Water Services Bill 2013

Sierra Oscar · 19-12-2013 5:15pm #1

Well, so much for the new politics as promised by the government. Every opposition TD has staged a collective walkout of the Dáil as the government is attempting to ram the Water Services Bill 2013 through the Oireachtas.

I think it is fair to argue that this bill is perhaps the most important piece of legislation that the Oireachtas will pass this year, yet it is being given less than half a day's debate in the Dáil.

The opposition have a duty to try and improve legislation through amendments, yet the government has refused to consider any opposition amendments on this bill.

A disgrace really when you take into account the promises made by both Fine Gael and Labour when it came to ensuring that legislation was properly debated.

Opposition TDs in Dáil walkout over Water Services Bill

Fianna Fáil lead Dáil walkout after row over water services legislation

In a rare occurrence Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, the technical group, and other independents made a joint press conference on the issue.

Press Statement - Opposition Walkout Over Water Services Bill

humanji · 19-12-2013 5:39pm

Is the bill stalled now, or does it get to go through anyway?

P_1 · 19-12-2013 5:41pm

humanji wrote: »

Is the bill stalled now, or does it get to go through anyway?

I'd imagine if it went to a vote the government's majority would see it through.

As an aside when was the last mass walkout from the Dail?

humanji · 19-12-2013 5:48pm

P_1 wrote: »

I'd imagine if it went to a vote the government's majority would see it through.

It may be the cynic in me, but I thought that might be the case and when I read FF had walked out, I instantly assumed they agreed with the bill and walked out in an attempt to make it look like they didn't to appease the voters.

P_1 · 19-12-2013 5:51pm

humanji wrote: »

It may be the cynic in me, but I thought that might be the case and when I read FF had walked out, I instantly assumed they agreed with the bill and walked out in an attempt to make it look like they didn't to appease the voters.

I'm equally as cynical about FF's motives truth be told. Having said that something does have to be done about the overuse of the guillotine that has come into vogue.

My inner French revolutionary would welcome the use of a different type of guillotine coming back into vogue mind.

Manach · 19-12-2013 6:01pm

Water- to which access has been recognised as a fundamental level of human rights- the speed that this act been taken without any overriding urgent reasons to allow debate, is an the OP pointed out, wrong.

Sierra Oscar · 19-12-2013 6:05pm

Manach wrote: »

Water- to which access has been recognised as a fundamental level of human rights- the speed that this act been taken without any overriding urgent reasons to allow debate, is an the OP pointed out, wrong.

Indeed - but even if you agree with water charges it is still wrong to ram this legislation through the Oireachtas. It is not being scrutinized and it has already been highlighted that there are flaws in the legislation.

Ultimately it will be the taxpayer who will have to pay for any mistakes as a result of this legislation not being properly scrutinized.

The government could have allocated additional time, either before now or in the new year, to properly debate this. However they just want to get it done and dusted so that the media do not hone in on the debate.

Gringo180 · 19-12-2013 6:08pm

Good oul Ming :pac:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b6a_1387463735

For Reals · 19-12-2013 6:22pm

This is just terrible. It's a prelude to privatisation, which in itself is short sighted. Like most privatisation, a few bob for the public coffers, great, but when the private company has a strangle hold on the public, and usually with poor service if the privatisation of water in the U.K. is anything to go by, the government just wring their hands and spout on about how they can ask but not dictate.

I'm pretty sure Fianna Fail would be all over pushing this through if they were in.
I do feel a sense of regret that I cannot give Fianna Fail the benefit of the doubt on this one. I'm not comfortable writing off anybody 100% but fool me six times etc.
Labour, you are a disgrace.

Mr.Micro · 19-12-2013 6:47pm

For Reals wrote: »

This is just terrible. It's a prelude to privatisation, which in itself is short sighted. Like most privatisation, a few bob for the public coffers, great, but when the private company has a strangle hold on the public, and usually with poor service if the privatisation of water in the U.K. is anything to go by, the government just wring their hands and spout on about how they can ask but not dictate.

I'm pretty sure Fianna Fail would be all over pushing this through if they were in.
I do feel a sense of regret that I cannot give Fianna Fail the benefit of the doubt on this one. I'm not comfortable writing off anybody 100% but fool me six times etc.
Labour, you are a disgrace.

Agree with privatisation or not, it is probably the only way to get investment into upgrading, infrastructure and providing a safe reliable service. It's just going to be another cost that consumers will have to bear.

walshb · 19-12-2013 7:17pm

Gringo180 wrote: »

Good oul Ming :pac:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b6a_1387463735

They really have no shame and no standards.

hmmm · 19-12-2013 7:54pm

Gringo180 wrote: »

Good oul Ming :pac:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b6a_1387463735

He has no problem opposing environmental standards for protecting our bogs, but on the other hand he wants the environment that produces our water to be perfect.

Banjo String · 19-12-2013 8:04pm

hmmm wrote: »

He has no problem opposing environmental standards for protecting our bogs, but on the other hand he wants the environment that produces our water to be perfect.

I think the point he was making was it is wrong to expect people to be forced to pay for water that is literally poisonous.

I found it really easy to follow tbh.

ezra_pound · 19-12-2013 8:04pm

Ming the minger and Mick the mick.

ezra_pound · 19-12-2013 8:05pm

Banjo String wrote: »

I think the point he was making was it is wrong to expect people to be forced to pay for water that is literally poisonous.

I found it really easy to follow tbh.

The point the poster made is that ming has double standards when it comes to environmental matters. He's no rainbow warrior.

Banjo String · 19-12-2013 8:16pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

The point the poster made is that ming has double standards when it comes to environmental matters. He's no rainbow warrior.

hmmm wrote: »

He has no problem opposing environmental standards for protecting our bogs, but on the other hand he wants the environment that produces our water to be perfect.

I'm sure the other poster can type for themselves, but anyway.

Ming Flanagans 'point' today wasn't double standards as far as I could make out. He made the legitimate point that his constituents would soon be forced to pay water charges for water that is not fit for human consumption.

Little to do with the environment Imo, and more to do with having to pay for a bad service.

I'd guess if you were in a cafe and you ordered a coffee, you'd expect it to be drinkable if your being asked to pay for it?

Faux outrage and deflection all around lads.

For Reals · 19-12-2013 8:37pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Agree with privatisation or not, it is probably the only way to get investment into upgrading, infrastructure and providing a safe reliable service. It's just going to be another cost that consumers will have to bear.

Lets suppose the tax paying public and the government are one entity.
We need pay a levy/tax for water to ensure quantity and quality to every house.
For decades this was drawn from other sources, but now its felt we need a specific levy for water, (personally I think its just an excuse for more tax but what ever).
So down the road we decide, 'why not privatise?' some company can look after the whole affair and we'll make money.....but each individually have to pay at rates set by a private company not beholding to us and they could sell it on to some other company......The service may suffer but times are tough and they need raise rates for the upkeep. And so on.
Basically we're putting money in one pocket and taking it out of another. All that will happen is we'll give up control of our water supply for an initial lump sum.

I disagree with you post. I'm not a consumer. My taxes are not investments in the corporate sense. It's my water already, my family and I had paid and continue to pay for the supply to come to my tap. The government and council work for me as much as I pay tax to them.
Cherry picking services already funded/supported by taxes and splitting them off to private concerns, (while not lowering other taxes I might add) is in the least disingenuous and at worse a scam to bleed people dry under the guise of necessity, which not unlike the Home tax and Broadcast tax, is simply bull****.

hmmm · 19-12-2013 8:56pm

Banjo String wrote: »

He made the legitimate point that his constituents would soon be forced to pay water charges for water that is not fit for human consumption.

Little to do with the environment Imo

Water that is "not fit for human consumption" has "little to do with the environment"? You what?

hatrickpatrick · 19-12-2013 9:41pm

Personally I don't see the point in debating anything when the current voting system ensures that politicians are forced to vote with their party regardless. The Dail as it currently stands is a rubber stamp for the cabinet - in all honesty, if you bypassed the Dail altogether and simply allowed the cabinet to unilaterally pass legislation, how much difference would it actually have made to say the last year of acts?

I agree that ramming things through is a disgrace, but standing orders relating to speaking rights and party membership need to fundamentally change in order for debate in the Dail to be productive.

My name is URL · 19-12-2013 9:41pm

hmmm wrote: »

Water that is "not fit for human consumption" has "little to do with the environment"? You what?

Do you agree with the point he made regarding the quality of water in certain areas, or are you just on automatic when it comes to Flanagan... ie. oppose even that which you agree with just because of the individual speaking? Irish politics, ehh?

He's a hypocrite a lot of the time, as are the majority of others in the Dail, but he's spot on with what he said today.. nobody else seemed bothered enough to raise the issue.

Banjo String · 19-12-2013 9:56pm

hmmm wrote: »

Water that is "not fit for human consumption" has "little to do with the environment"? You what?

If you're going to quote me, at least quote the post in its entirety.

Do you agree that it's a disgrace that members of his constituency will be forced to pay for water that is literally poisonous?

Again I also ask, if you ordered a coffee in a cafe, if you were being charged for the coffee, would you expect it to be at the very least drinkable, never mind non poisonous?

If the man hadn't a valid point, let me know.

hmmm · 19-12-2013 10:14pm

Banjo String wrote: »

If you're going to quote me, at least quote the post in its entirety.

Do you think the quality of drinking water has something to do with the environment, yes or no? If no, where do you think water comes from?

And yes, I do have a problem with someone who opposes environmental regulations on the one hand, and on the other hand expects to be provided with clean drinking water.

oscarBravo · 19-12-2013 10:25pm

Banjo String wrote: »

Do you agree that it's a disgrace that members of his constituency will be forced to pay for water that is literally poisonous?

Members of his constituency are already paying for toxic water - it's the quality of the water that's the disgrace here, not the fact that the means of paying for it will change.

That's a distinction that seems to be lost on Flanagan and his supporters. If he's only framing his objection to toxic drinking water in the context of direct billing, he's implying that it's OK for that water to be piped to his constituents' homes as long as they're paying for it through taxation.

hatrickpatrick · 19-12-2013 10:35pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Members of his constituency are already paying for toxic water - it's the quality of the water that's the disgrace here, not the fact that the means of paying for it will change.

That's a distinction that seems to be lost on Flanagan and his supporters. If he's only framing his objection to toxic drinking water in the context of direct billing, he's implying that it's OK for that water to be piped to his constituents' homes as long as they're paying for it through taxation.

So once water charges are brought in, there will be a tax cut elsewhere to the equivalent of however much tax revenue was already being spent on water then?

Ridiculous argument. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo · 19-12-2013 10:38pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So once water charges are brought in, there will be a tax cut elsewhere to the equivalent of however much tax revenue was already being spent on water then?

Who claimed that?

Ridiculous argument. :rolleyes:

Nicely dodged.

View · 19-12-2013 11:08pm

Sounds like the opposition want an excuse to head home early for Christmas.

After all, does anyone imagine that should the Dáil spend the next two months debating this that it'll make a blind bit of difference to the votes on the bill and/or any proposed amendments to it.

When was the last time a government lost a vote in the Dáil? Was it when Jim Kemmy cast the key swing vote to vote down the budget in '81 or '82?

Manach · 19-12-2013 11:25pm

Irish legislation is usually of fairly high standard, comparatively from what I've read. However rushed bills without proper time for other views then tends to the fount of major issues down the line. For instance that of the Company Act, 1990. This was rushed through due to the Beef issues at the time. The language in the act was, poorly configured. Hence much wasted ink was shed to try and moderate this in the courts - with a more holistic bill having to be later drafted.
This current guillotine seems to have no present urgency but a self-imposed one by the government.

ezra_pound · 20-12-2013 12:32am

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm sure the other poster can type for themselves, but anyway.

Ming Flanagans 'point' today wasn't double standards as far as I could make out. He made the legitimate point that his constituents would soon be forced to pay water charges for water that is not fit for human consumption.

Little to do with the environment Imo, and more to do with having to pay for a bad service.

I'd guess if you were in a cafe and you ordered a coffee, you'd expect it to be drinkable if your being asked to pay for it?

Faux outrage and deflection all around lads.

I'm sure all posters here can speak for themselves. I'm just supporting his view which you fail to see. Ming is a clientelist local issue pothole fixing TD and represents much of what is wrong with this country.

If ming wants his constituents drinking healthy clean water then he should support the funding of the water system and this water tax.

Simple.

nice_guy80 · 20-12-2013 1:19am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Members of his constituency are already paying for toxic water - it's the quality of the water that's the disgrace here, not the fact that the means of paying for it will change.

That's a distinction that seems to be lost on Flanagan and his supporters. If he's only framing his objection to toxic drinking water in the context of direct billing, he's implying that it's OK for that water to be piped to his constituents' homes as long as they're paying for it through taxation.

Many areas in rural Ireland have their own water schemes, costs paid for by the local residents.

Mainly cause they wouldn't trust the council to run them.
And with just cause.

nice_guy80 · 20-12-2013 1:22am

ezra_pound wrote: »

I'm sure all posters here can speak for themselves. I'm just supporting his view which you fail to see. Ming is a clientelist local issue pothole fixing TD and represents much of what is wrong with this country.

If ming wants his constituents drinking healthy clean water then he should support the funding of the water system and this water tax.

Simple.

No.
Cannot agree with you on this one. Some of the opposition deputies have introduced very well thought out bills on various issues only for them to be shot down by the government. (you just never hear about them in the media due to the government spin masters controlling the flow of information)

Water is a right, not a privilege.
Everyone is entitled to an amount of clean, drinkable water everyday.
The government have not even proposed what level of water consumption each day will not be charged for.

gotBass · 20-12-2013 1:36am

What I would like to know is who is in the background. Water privatisation is going to happen, the question is which pack of crooks this time is going to screw us. When things like this get rammed through there is always someone waiting to cash in on the rest of us.
No point being annoyed just pay up like a good little Paddy. Btw I have no problem with taxes but something smells off here.

gotBass · 20-12-2013 1:36am

What I would like to know is who is in the background. Water privatisation is going to happen, the question is which pack of crooks this time is going to screw us. When things like this get rammed through there is always someone waiting to cash in on the rest of us.
No point being annoyed just pay up like a good little Paddy. Btw I have no problem with taxes but something smells off here.

Mr.Micro · 20-12-2013 1:41am

nice_guy80 wrote: »

No.
Cannot agree with you on this one. Some of the opposition deputies have introduced very well thought out bills on various issues only for them to be shot down by the government. (you just never hear about them in the media due to the government spin masters controlling the flow of information)

Water is a right, not a privilege.
Everyone is entitled to an amount of clean, drinkable water everyday.
The government have not even proposed what level of water consumption each day will not be charged for.

Water is a resource that is now a commodity. The local authorities have provided water to people up to now, apart from those with their own supply. This provision has been hotch potch in quality in many cases. To ensure future quality it needs to be provided by a standard authority, hopefully that will modernise the provision of water and treatment of fresh and waste water. It simply cannot continue into the modern age as it is. The only thing left, that we will not have to pay for is air, and I won't hold my breath on that one.

ezra_pound · 20-12-2013 1:46am

nice_guy80 wrote: »

No.
Cannot agree with you on this one. Some of the opposition deputies have introduced very well thought out bills on various issues only for them to be shot down by the government. (you just never hear about them in the media due to the government spin masters controlling the flow of information)

Water is a right, not a privilege.
Everyone is entitled to an amount of clean, drinkable water everyday.
The government have not even proposed what level of water consumption each day will not be charged for.

OK so let's not tax water, property or income because these are "rights".

I never mentioned anything about opposition TDs by the way.

hatrickpatrick · 20-12-2013 2:02am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who claimed that? Nicely dodged.

You seemed to be, by implying that the only thing that's changing is the method of paying for water.
If we accept your argument that we're already paying for it through other taxes, ten with the addition of water charges its fair to say we're going to be paying more for it than we used to. In that context, it's entirely reasonable to object to having to pay more based on the quality of the water provided. No?

Banjo String · 20-12-2013 9:10am

ezra_pound wrote: »

I'm sure all posters here can speak for themselves. I'm just supporting his view which you fail to see. Ming is a clientelist local issue pothole fixing TD and represents much of what is wrong with this country.

If ming wants his constituents drinking healthy clean water then he should support the funding of the water system and this water tax.

Simple.

Brings me back to the original question I asked you about coffee.

If you pay for a coffee in a cafe/shop would you expect it to be bedrinkable and from freshly washed mug's?

Again. Ming Flanagan was making a point that you can't ask people to pay directly for a service if the service isn't being provided.

Water had been funded via taxes up until now. If it's going to be paid for directly without a reduction in other taxes, at least make it drinkable (even being able to brush your teeth with would be nice)

But hey, It's Ming. Ming must be dismissed regardless of how much sense he talks at times.

Right?

nice_guy80 · 20-12-2013 11:38am

Does anyone here live in an area where they cannot drink the water???
Or wash in it. Or wash clothes, brush teeth, water the garden.
For months on end

Do you know how much hassle that causes??

(and Ming will get voted in by a landslide at the next election, along with Naughten)

Phoebas · 20-12-2013 12:56pm

Ming playing stunt politics again.

He'd much better serve his constituents if he put some actual facts about the quality of the water on the record rather than playing games.

Phoebas · 20-12-2013 1:01pm

Banjo String wrote: »

Again. Ming Flanagan was making a point that you can't ask people to pay directly for a service if the service isn't being provided.

You seem to know more about Ming's position on water charges than Ming does. I can't figure out if he's in favour of water charges if the quality is up to standard or if he's ideologically opposed to charges.

Sierra Oscar · 20-12-2013 1:12pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally I don't see the point in debating anything when the current voting system ensures that politicians are forced to vote with their party regardless.

It is very important. The opposition often proposes amendments to address problems with the legislation that it has identified that the government may have overlooked. Sure, it might not make it into the news and the government might table the same amendments themselves once they acknowledge the problem so that they can vote it through. However nonetheless it is the opposition that identified the issue. If you guillotine a debate then the opposition is not being given that opportunity to table amendments.

There are issues that the opposition have identified with the legislation and they cannot articulate those problems because the debate has been guillotined. I am fairly certain that the legislation will have to be amended retrospectively to address some of these issues - but not before the taxpayer has been hit with unnecessary costs.

Rushing through legislation is a bad way to legislate, always has been and always will be. It should be cut out once and for all as the government promised.

nice_guy80 · 20-12-2013 1:27pm

You could hardly call the work of the current Dail democratic when the government just guillotines all legislation and doesn't debate the issues properly, due to its large majority and use of the whip system

micosoft · 20-12-2013 1:32pm

Manach wrote: »

Water- to which access has been recognised as a fundamental level of human rights- the speed that this act been taken without any overriding urgent reasons to allow debate, is an the OP pointed out, wrong.

Food and Shelter are also universal rights. Are you suggesting that they also be supplied by the state? Industry in this country using rights to argue that you don't have to pay for something.

micosoft · 20-12-2013 1:36pm

Banjo String wrote: »

Water had been funded via taxes up until now. If it's going to be paid for directly without a reduction in other taxes, at least make it drinkable (even being able to brush your teeth with would be nice)

Here's the problem - it hasn't been properly funded and the infrastructure the English left us has slowly degraded through neglect over the decades. For once we are about to properly fund water services in this country. Expecting it to be all fixed before charging is not an option unless Irish Water is to become massively indebted and people pay off that debt in years to come typical Irish approach, let our children pay.

Banjo String · 20-12-2013 2:22pm

Phoebas wrote: »

You seem to know more about Ming's position on water charges than Ming does. I can't figure out if he's in favour of water charges if the quality is up to standard or if he's ideologically opposed to charges.

Eh, no I don't seem to know more about his position, I do not know wether he supports water charges, or opposes them. My comments were based on his comments made yesterday only.

What I took from what he said, is that its wrong to expect people to be forced to pay for the supply of water that is fit for human consumption.

micosoft wrote: »

Here's the problem - it hasn't been properly funded and the infrastructure the English left us has slowly degraded through neglect over the decades. For once we are about to properly fund water services in this country. Expecting it to be all fixed before charging is not an option unless Irish Water is to become massively indebted and people pay off that debt in years to come typical Irish approach, let our children pay.

Blame the English :pac:

Ref his goods and services act. Why would Coca Cola (for example) be sued, and their products pulled from Irish stores if ehat they were selling was poisonous, yet it is (seemingly) ok for the Irish Govt to do it

Phoebas · 20-12-2013 2:30pm

Banjo String wrote: »

Eh, no I don't seem to know more about his position, I do not know wether he supports water charges, or opposes them. My comments were based on his comments made yesterday only.

What I took from what he said, is that its wrong to expect people to be forced to pay for the supply of water that is fit for human consumption.

That's my problem with this kind of stunt politics: its not at all clear if he would support charging for water that is fit for human consumption.
Nor is it clear how he thinks getting the water fit for human consumption should be funded.

Ming is just playing games here; a cheap stunt designed to get some publicity for Ming himself but without any real substance.

Banjo String · 20-12-2013 2:37pm

Phoebas wrote: »

That's my problem with this kind of stunt politics: its not at all clear if he would support charging for water that is fit for human consumption.
Nor is it clear how he thinks getting the water fit for human consumption should be funded.

Ming is just playing games here; a cheap stunt designed to get some publicity for Ming himself but without any real substance.

Maybe you'd like to be a bit clearer with your position on it so.

Do you you think the people he's representing should have to pay for 'glorified piss', and secondly would you pay for it if it was being piped into your house, and your children couldn't even brush their teeth with it?

Phoebas · 20-12-2013 2:42pm

Banjo String wrote: »

Maybe you'd like to be a bit clearer with your position on it so.

Do you you think the people he's representing should have to pay for 'glorified piss', and secondly would you pay for it if it was being piped into your house, and your children couldn't even brush their teeth with it?

I wouldn't want contaminated water -full stop.
I can't tell if Ming thinks its ok to have a contaminated water supply as long as its free. I think everyone should have a clean water supply.

Manach · 20-12-2013 2:45pm

micosoft wrote: »

Food and Shelter are also universal rights. Are you suggesting that they also be supplied by the state? Industry in this country using rights to argue that you don't have to pay for something.

Rights by their nature have been used as a rheorertic trump card to mean that has to be secured against all other interests - according to the texts I've read on the subject. So to delimit what are rights - these can be pared down to those backed by international agreements/bodies, that this state was agreed to. In water's case, this (AFAIR) comes from a UN rights body. Hence their is a general presumption that this is something that a state owes to the general citizernery through the general imposition of taxes payable to said state. Again from a text on taxes, "are a basic framework for a society".
This also has to be place in the historical context of a massive increase of state power and share of the economic activity of the state, where what had been core expenditures have been used to fund these new activities.

Banjo String · 20-12-2013 2:49pm

Phoebas wrote: »

I wouldn't want contaminated water -full stop.
I can't tell if Ming thinks its ok to have a contaminated water supply as long as its free. I think everyone should have a clean water supply.

But it's not free as is. It's paid for via tax/vat already.

His point being it's fundamentally wrong to expect them to pay directly for it, if it's unfit for human consumption.

Phoebas · 20-12-2013 2:57pm

Banjo String wrote: »

His point being it's fundamentally wrong to expect them to pay directly for it, if it's unfit for human consumption.

If that is his point I didn't get it from his stunt.

Does he think its fundamentally right to expect them to pay for it directly if it is fit for human consumption?
Or does he think that there is no fundamental right to clean water as long as its free at the point of usage?

creedp · 20-12-2013 3:20pm

Phoebas wrote: »

If that is his point I didn't get it from his stunt.

Does he think its fundamentally right to expect them to pay for it directly if it is fit for human consumption?
Or does he think that there is no fundamental right to clean water as long as its free at the point of usage?

We can play semantics all we want but the reality which everyone accepts now is that water charges are coming - and the Govt can blame the Troika for this - coveniently letting them off the hook. From my perspective water is already being paid for through taxes so there is no such thing as free water in Ireland. Charges are being implemented to raise revenue to fund an almighty quango in Irish Water and ultimately generate profit for some private individual/company.

What I can't understand is why there isn't more scrunity around how much money needs to be generated in charges to fund Irish Water and the installation of water meters to premises all over the country as well as investing in water infrastructure to actually provide for a more efficient and higher quality water supply. Will it actually be the case that the Govt will have to continue invest in the infrastructure as Irish Water will have no money for such works after they pay themselves and pay for meters. So status quo really except private investors such as D O'Brien and Co will have made a tasty profit out of installing meters and can look forward to even more profit down the road on privitisation of the service.

However, will investor ensure that the Govt has funded the upgrade of the infrastructure before it is privitised? Why would a private investor want to dump serious money into such works when, unless water charges will be very significant, the payback would be too long term. If there's one thing O'Brien and Co want more than anything else is a quick buck.

Its my view that Ming has a point in that before the income from direct charges in additon to current tax funding are squandered on Irish Water and meters, the infrastructure should have been brought up to an acceptable standard such that at least people are paying for a clean water supply.

Opposition Stage Collective Dáil Walkout as Gov Guillotines Water Services Bill 2013

Comments