Water charges revisited?

aido79

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What an excellent rebuttal.

I thought accusing someone of being a re-reg was against the charter, not to mention a bit lousy/ bad form.

All that aside, you're barking up the wrong tree sunshine.

You admitted to posting previously in the Irish Water threads. The username Johnny Dogs never appeared in the old threads so you're obviously using a different account...and yes I was barking up the wrong tree but I have been pointed to the correct tree now.
Let's not drag the thread off topic though.

Hitman3000

Seth Brundle wrote:

Should this also apply to group water schemes and other currently paid for water supplies? Also, stop comparing it to air!

Are these schemes currently subsidised by the state by way of grants?

Hitman3000

aido79 wrote:

You admitted to posting previously in the Irish Water threads. The username Johnny Dogs never appeared in the old threads so you're obviously using a different account...and yes I was barking up the wrong tree but I have been pointed to the correct tree now. Let's not drag the thread off topic though.

Actually i maybe wrong but i think he said certain points were repeatedly made on the mega threads, not that he had made them.

McMurphy

aido79 wrote: »

You admitted to posting previously in the Irish Water threads. The username Johnny Dogs never appeared in the old threads so you're obviously using a different account...and yes I was barking up the wrong tree but I have been pointed to the correct tree now.
Let's not drag the thread off topic though.

Agreed


Let's move on.

dense

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I think the average Joe who conserves water should be pay around 100 per year. After that sky is the limit. I could see heavy users paying 500 to 1000 depending on use.

Everyone should have to pay something for water even if it is just to make them understand that its not free

Yes, but the average household paying a hundred a year is only going to bring in about a hundred and fifty million euro, which is probably not even worth collecting in terms of making it a self funded utility with the ability to be off the books.


I don't think a hundred would be worth collecting really, maybe leave it to start wity alright, but itd definitely have to be raised after people get used to paying it.

Nor is a hundred euro going to appeal to any other water utility that might be interested in entering the market to offer the consumer some competition and prevent Irish Water existing indefinitely as a state aided monopoly utility, because that is the last thing it was intended to be.

And if you think that's not a possibility just look at the electricity market, different utilities vying for customers offering them all the very same product coming through the same wires into the house.


I don't see any reason why water provision can't be put through the same hoops.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Yes, but the average household paying a hundred a year is only going to bring in about a hundred and fifty million euro, which is probably not even worth collecting in terms of making it a self funded utility with the ability to be off the books.


I don't think a hundred would be worth collecting really, maybe leave it to start wity alright, but itd definitely have to be raised after people get used to paying it.

Nor is a hundred euro going to appeal to any other water utility that might be interested in entering the market to offer the consumer some competition and prevent Irish Water existing indefinitely as a state aided monopoly utility, because that is the last thing it was intended to be.

And if you think that's not a possibility just look at the electricity market, different utilities vying for customers offering them all the very same product coming through the same wires into the house.


I don't see any reason why water provision can't be put through the same hoops.

I think €300 a year is reasonable.

I am on record repeatedly as pointing to the environmental requirement to conserve water.

€300 a year from c1.7m households brings in €500m. Add another €100m from those using more than normal, and you have a pretty decent income from households. Add in more income from business and agriculture and you are on your way to a decently funded water utility.

oceanman

I wouldn't be too worried about water charges being revisited...... at least not any time soon. any government who wants to stay in power are not going mention reintroducing water charges as the opposition parties would tear them to pieces, and by the same token any opposition party hoping to get into power will be avoiding anything to do with water charges like the plague.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

I think €300 a year is reasonable.

I am on record repeatedly as pointing to the environmental requirement to conserve water.

€300 a year from c1.7m households brings in €500m. Add another €100m from those using more than normal, and you have a pretty decent income from households. Add in more income from business and agriculture and you are on your way to a decently funded water utility.

I'd not be against such an idea either, what the govt should be looking at is seeing if a mandatory payment for water services should be issued and collected by revenue, the charges could be certain levels (3 or r options) such as pensioner/fixed or low income. Single occupancy, couples - No children,/family etc would be workable.

All houses liable, no exception, something similar like domestic rates, where the occupier is liable as opposed to the landlord.

Irish Water could operate in a similar fashion such as the NRA, and not be seen as a money generator.

Revenue collected ring fenced, and spent on nothing else than water services and infrastructure.

Strangely they've been reluctant to get revenue involved so far, which always (imo) added to the privatisation paranoia.

charlie14

aido79 wrote: »

So you just take a stab in the dark at the average household water use? Some houses might be single occupants, some might have 4 occupants, some like mine might have different levels of occupancy from week to week as I am away for work regularly for a week or more. There is just so many variables in your method that it is impossible for it to measure water usage or leaks.

According to this article each district meter is responsible for 1000 to 1500 properties. This would indicate that you are wrong in saying there is a meter both on the entry and exit of a housing estate as there are only 4407 district meters in the country.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/utility-says-domestic-meters-key-to-finding-leaks-35494892.html

You were long enough around the old threads to know that the figure for average household occupancy is not "a stab in the dark". It is the figure from the Central Statistics Office. You were also around long enough to know that the average usage of water per occupant was determine by Irish Water. Although I seem to recall you didn`t agree with that figure but had no explanation when asked as to why.
A determination that was arrived at after massive cost when a sample survey would have achieved the same for a fraction of the cost.


AS to the highlighted above, try and read posts rather than make things up.
I never said that.

I was using it as an example to explain to another poster how in practice district metering works.
Terrible standard of posting from someone who is a moderator imho



LOL. You provide a link to an article that says Irish Water think Domestic meters are necessary to identify leaks.
It didn`t cross your mind that after burying 900,000 of them at gigantic expense that they were scrambling to come up with any reason to justify it.
It is a quite simple fact that area metering can be used in the detection of leaks for a fraction of the cost of metering every household. But you already know that from the older threads.

charlie14

Good loser wrote: »

Like every other country in the world people should pay in accordance with their usage. The charges should cover the costs of the utility - capital and current. It's called commonsense.

Another who has been around these threads long enough to know better.
People were not being asked to pay for the water they used

The attempt was made to compelled them to pay,as you put it yourself, to cover the costs of the utility.
Commonsense showed that not only were they expected to pay for the water they used, they were also expected to pay for water leaking from a utilities mains.


Not exactly the promise they were given by Enda Kenny that there would be world class water and waste water systems in place before they were asked to pony up a red cent now was it ?

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

I think €300 a year is reasonable.

I am on record repeatedly as pointing to the environmental requirement to conserve water.

€300 a year from c1.7m households brings in €500m. Add another €100m from those using more than normal, and you have a pretty decent income from households. Add in more income from business and agriculture and you are on your way to a decently funded water utility.

You'd probably need to realistically allow for €400 then, to allow for the likes of adequately funding major work like the Shannon project and any unforeseen circumstances .

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

I think €300 a year is reasonable.

I am on record repeatedly as pointing to the environmental requirement to conserve water.

€300 a year from c1.7m households brings in €500m. Add another €100m from those using more than normal, and you have a pretty decent income from households. Add in more income from business and agriculture and you are on your way to a decently funded water utility.

Have you anything to back up this 100m from those using more than 213,000 liters per annum, or is it just a figure you plucked from the sky to justify the 465m spent on meters in an attempt to justify at least the same again to meter the remaining households ?

charlie14

aido79 wrote: »

You admitted to posting previously in the Irish Water threads. The username Johnny Dogs never appeared in the old threads so you're obviously using a different account...and yes I was barking up the wrong tree but I have been pointed to the correct tree now.
Let's not drag the thread off topic though.

Kind of ironic imo when there are posters on here who favour your posts that the same could be said off.:)

Seth Brundle

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I'd not be against such an idea either, what the govt should be looking at is seeing if a mandatory payment for water services should be issued and collected by revenue, the charges could be certain levels (3 or r options) such as pensioner/fixed or low income. Single occupancy, couples - No children,/family etc would be workable.

Out of curiosity, why revenue and not a dedicated agency?

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Have you anything to back up this 100m from those using more than 213,000 liters per annum, or is it just a figure you plucked from the sky to justify the 465m spent on meters in an attempt to justify at least the same again to meter the remaining households ?

Where did I set the €300 normal usage in my proposal at 213,000 liters per annum?

Cost of installing meters is irrelevant to my proposal as it is one-off costs. You are making the same mistake that many have made in counting the one-off installation costs against the annual revenue.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

You'd probably need to realistically allow for €400 then, to allow for the likes of adequately funding major work like the Shannon project and any unforeseen circumstances .

Possibly, but an independent utility funded in that way, would be able to borrow off-books for such major infrastructure.

GreeBo

dense wrote: »

There's nothing crazy about asking how much you think you want to pay for an average bill.

Actually there is.
Have you ever been to a restaurant where they ask you how much you want to pay, irrespective of what you order?
Its not a very sane business model.

dense wrote: »

I keep reading about people wanting to pay, when I ask how much they'd like to pay, it really looks like not very much at all.

"Enough" is how much we should pay. Right now we are not paying "enough" and the system is in tatters.

dense wrote: »

It's all theory, theoretically wanting a bill, and philosophising about paying, not having considered how much they want this imaginary bill to be.

If nobody wants to say what they'd like to pay, can someone post up the annual figure that IW is planning on spending over the next 10 years and we'll see what an average bill will be?

Again I dont understand how you think ANY utility can function if the consumers decide how much they are willing to pay.
Its just nonsense.

dense wrote: »

Average use has been established, now you need to establish the average cost, and that will help establish an average charge.
And I'm not talking down to the last cent, go ballpark.

Sorry, how exactly was average usage established?

dense wrote: »

I'm surprised nobody wanting to pay charges has considered chatting to those who aren't sold on it about any of this.

Well when the response is "FG con job" and no actual concrete alternatives to funding water, you'll excuse me for nothign bothering to chat to the peaceful protesters.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You wouldn't catch Irish Water/FG at such lunacy.


Actually I'm joking. You would.

If only they had some sort of devices that would accurately measure consumer water usage....any ideas?

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Why is this nonsense repeatedly trotted out ? No one believes water is free except perhaps young children or do you feel young children should be forced to pay just so they'll understand this important life lesson?

People who dont currently pay for it (those who dont pay tax) DO get water for free. It is free for them.

tom1ie wrote: »

Water is different compared to electricity and gas. Water is vital for life and for that reason free allowances up to a certain amount should be allocated to each person. Excess useage should result in a bill.
Water is comparable to air in that it is vital for life.

Its not different than water and gas. Its a utility.
How do those not hooked up to the mains survive otherwise?

Anyone is free AT ANY TIME to not consume water provided by IW and supply their own. Those who CHOOSE to consume the water that is conveniently available on tap from IW should pay whatever IW needs to charge for that service.

Does your milkman ask you how much you want to pay each week?
I'm guessing no, he lays out his charges depending on what you consume.
If you dont like his charges, jog on down to the shop and supply your own milk.
Water is no different other than in the heads of some people who believe its magical and should be free because we live in a country that rains a lot.

tom1ie

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Should this also apply to group water schemes and other currently paid for water supplies?
Also, stop comparing it to air!

stop talking about minority’s. We’ll cross that bridge when we need to. The points I’ve made apply to the vast majority of the population why bring the minority into it to disprove my points. That’s foolish.

McMurphy

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Out of curiosity, why revenue and not a dedicated agency?

Revenue by.and large are a highly efficient, and respected agency by the general public, it would quell privatisation fears also, and people could be reassured that if they're being told cash is being ring fenced, that it would be.

Irish Water will never be trusted nor accepted by the public, and I think anything they put their hands to now will be met by civil disobedience for fear of privatisation in the future and political interference and incompetence in the past.

tom1ie

GreeBo wrote: »

Actually there is.
Have you ever been to a restaurant where they ask you how much you want to pay, irrespective of what you order?
Its not a very sane business model.

"Enough" is how much we should pay. Right now we are not paying "enough" and the system is in tatters.

Again I dont understand how you think ANY utility can function if the consumers decide how much they are willing to pay.
Its just nonsense.

Sorry, how exactly was average usage established?

Well when the response is "FG con job" and no actual concrete alternatives to funding water, you'll excuse me for nothign bothering to chat to the peaceful protesters.


If only they had some sort of devices that would accurately measure consumer water usage....any ideas?


People who dont currently pay for it (those who dont pay tax) DO get water for free. It is free for them.

Its not different than water and gas. Its a utility.
How do those not hooked up to the mains survive otherwise?

Anyone is free AT ANY TIME to not consume water provided by IW and supply their own. Those who CHOOSE to consume the water that is conveniently available on tap from IW should pay whatever IW needs to charge for that service.

Does your milkman ask you how much you want to pay each week?
I'm guessing no, he lays out his charges depending on what you consume.
If you dont like his charges, jog on down to the shop and supply your own milk.
Water is no different other than in the heads of some people who believe its magical and should be free because we live in a country that rains a lot.

So you honestly believe iw will set a fair price on a unit of water and that the revenue generated will be ring fenced to infrastructure upgrades and fixing leaks?
If the answer to that yes, you need your head examined. If the answer is no then why are you so happy to hand over your hard earned money without getting guarantees on how it will be used?

charlie14

GreeBo wrote: »

No, they can detect leaks at the household side, as they have done many times since they were installed.
Its simple stuff, but I'll go over it again.
Water leaves treatment plant, via a meter.
It enters a water district, via a meter.
It enters customer property, via a meter
It leaves district, via a meter.
Can you not see that without meters on the customer side you have no idea if water is actually being used or not. How do you differentiate between people using water and water pissing into the ground on customers property without a meter at the customer?
Area/District/Whatever metering thats only on the mains will only tell you whats flowing between to meters. Thats fine if there are no consumers between the two meters.

All you have posted to date is an attempt to justify the proposed spend of 1 Billion euro on domestic meters as value for money in detecting leaks on the household side of mains without having the vaguest notion of how much water is leaked on the household side other than some idea that it is equal to the water lost through mains leaks.
Something that Irish Water in their maddest of days never claimed



It may have escaped you that before there would be any domestic metering we were promised that we would have a system fit for purpose.
Now a simple question, as you have been guessing on household side leaks. how many household side leaks do you believe, considering volume and pressure, would be equivalent to a major mains leak ?

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Where did I set the €300 normal usage in my proposal at 213,000 liters per annum?

Cost of installing meters is irrelevant to my proposal as it is one-off costs. You are making the same mistake that many have made in counting the one-off installation costs against the annual revenue.

If you are attempting to ignore the 213,000 liters per annum then at this stage you are ignoring reality with your figures I`m afraid.
As pro posters in the past were more than keen to tell us when backing the whole clusterf**k. "It is what it is. Learn to live with it."

Sleeper12

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Why is this nonsense repeatedly trotted out ? No one believes water is free except perhaps young children or do you feel young children should be forced to pay just so they'll understand this important life lesson?

tom1ie wrote: »

Water is different compared to electricity and gas. Water is vital for life and for that reason free allowances up to a certain amount should be allocated to each person. Excess useage should result in a bill.
Water is comparable to air in that it is vital for life.

My business is shower repair. I am is 5 to 8 bathrooms per day. On average 2 bathrooms per day have leaking taps or toilet running. I specialize in showers & don't do tap washers & the like but the thing is most people don't ask about the tap or toilet. They want the shower fixed because they want to shower but they don't care about water wasted from their house because it's "free". They might know that water isn't free but they wont spend money to stop the waste of water.


In the run up to having to pay per litre people were fixing these small leaks. I had clients asking what shower uses the least amount of water. Now people want the showers that use the most. I do myself tbh but I should have to pay for the privilege. I still use my power shower during the drought but we are operating a yellow mellow/ brown flush it down policy in my home for the last 3 or 4 weeks. Longer than the hosepipe ban. Irish water left it late imo

dense wrote: »

Yes, but the average household paying a hundred a year is only going to bring in about a hundred and fifty million euro, which is probably not even worth collecting in terms of making it a self funded utility with the ability to be off the books.

I suggested 100 per person/adult not 100 per house




I'm not a FG supporter. I think the last government under Enda Kenny was one of the worst in the history of the state but I'm a firm believer in paying for water & property tax. When the worlds economy crashed due to the banking crisis in 2008 we suffered more then most countries. Obviously we were far too reliant on the building sector for tax generation but that wasn't all. Aur tax base wasn't spread out enough. We should have had property tax & water tax/charges to soften the blow. It would have been easier to bring in property tax & water charges during the boom. Each budget they gave us tax breaks, higher dole & pensions. It would have been easier then to say "look we're shifting the way you pay tax. Higher welfare payments & lower tax rates. It's the same only different"

McMurphy

GreeBo wrote: »

"Enough" is how much we should pay. Right now we are not paying "enough" and the system is in tatters.

Any concrete evidence of this? And you might want to think before you reply.

Again I dont understand how you think ANY utility can function if the consumers decide how much they are willing to pay.
Its just nonsense.

Dont tax payers self evaluate Property tax?

Sorry, how exactly was average usage established?

Not like it hasn't been covered about 100 times at this stage, but samples by way of district meters could have done the same thing, at a fraction of the cost.

Jesus this is tiresome.

If only they had some sort of devices that would accurately measure consumer water usage....any ideas?

See above.

People who dont currently pay for it (those who dont pay tax) DO get water for free. It is free for them.

The mask always slips sooner or later.... by the way, the biggest chunk of welfare payments goes on pensions.... The OAPs might just disagree that they get free water.... they that have contributed to the states coffers for years.

Its not different than water and gas. Its a utility.
How do those not hooked up to the mains survive otherwise?

It's not different to gas and electricity? Let's kill that argument right now....

Who here gets an electric or gas allowance, and only pays for either or when they exceed said allowance?

Anyone???

Anyone is free AT ANY TIME to not consume water provided by IW and supply their own. Those who CHOOSE to consume the water that is conveniently available on tap from IW should pay whatever IW needs to charge for that service.

Does your milkman ask you how much you want to pay each week?
I'm guessing no, he lays out his charges depending on what you consume.
If you dont like his charges, jog on down to the shop and supply your own milk.
Water is no different other than in the heads of some people who believe its magical and should be free because we live in a country that rains a lot.

2015 just called, and it wants it's rhetoric back.

charlie14

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

2015 just called, and it wants it's rhetoric back.

Getting increasingly like an episode of Star Trek around here where pro posters got lost in a time warp and are only now returning unaware/in denial of developments in the interim.

McMurphy

charlie14 wrote: »

Getting increasingly like an episode of Star Trek around here where pro posters got lost in a time warp and are only now returning unaware/in denial of developments in the interim.

It's literally unbelievable that the same myths and rhetoric already debunked years ago are coming back to the fore.

I assume the brain washing took place in a GWS or private well, cos god forbid they used the free water, paid for by the magic money tree....

All this arguing aside, it still seems that some people here want to disregard the FG established expert commitee.....

Hardly surprising when they also disregard Irish Waters statements when it suits them too.


I think party allegiance is at play here, and it would have to take water charges being introduced by the shinners or FF before some call an end to the madness

Idbatterim

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The whole thing feel apart as soon as mention of 80 million paid to consultants. FG's favourite business person being awarded lucrative contracts to a company he had purchased at a knock down price . A bonus culture introduced before the ink on the company letterheads was dry ( slight exaggeration I know) . A fleet of expensed Audis. FG crony's appointed to key positions. Laughing yoga. All this done when a population were still struggling with the fallout of the crash and families were finding it tough to fed their children, the government wanted to introduce another bill with the force of threats . FG promised there would be no bills until the leaks were addressed, a lie and it has transpired much of what they said was mired in lies and half truths. Finally on the IW website in the early days the retention of PPS numbers were classified as a saleable asset.
I will pay water charges, if Revenue gets the task. All monies are ring fenced, that ownership of the network and the resource ie the Water is constitutionally protected and that the currant organisation including call centre is pared back to the bone.

other than the optics, its a bit of six of one, half a dozen of the other, with government just directly funding water, there are simply less welfare increases and tax cuts come budget time. Honestly, theyd just have wasted the amount they didnt directly have to spend on water. They are now spending a fortune on it, compared to before, so in a way, you could argue its turned out for the best. One quick and cheap fix though, to reduce water usage nearly instantly, might have been to stick with the meters and charge those using high amounts, due to a leak on the property or simply high usage... Replacing the thousands of km of piping, will take a hell of a lot longer than that would...

Have you ever been to a restaurant where they ask you how much you want to pay, irrespective of what you order?
Its not a very sane business model.

this is off topic, but yes these do exist, of course they are relying on most people being honest...

https://www.roadaffair.com/pay-what-you-want-restaurants/

GreeBo

tom1ie wrote: »

So you honestly believe iw will set a fair price on a unit of water and that the revenue generated will be ring fenced to infrastructure upgrades and fixing leaks?
If the answer to that yes, you need your head examined. If the answer is no then why are you so happy to hand over your hard earned money without getting guarantees on how it will be used?

What exactly do you think they are going to do with any surplus?
Give out dividends?

You need your head examined if you think that IW are going to cream millions in profits and not repair the infrastructure.

charlie14 wrote: »

All you have posted to date is an attempt to justify the proposed spend of 1 Billion euro on domestic meters as value for money in detecting leaks on the household side of mains without having the vaguest notion of how much water is leaked on the household side other than some idea that it is equal to the water lost through mains leaks.
Something that Irish Water in their maddest of days never claimed

eh hello?
The meters are the thing that give you more than the vaguest notion of how much water is leaked on the customer side.
They MEASURE water. Thats their job.

charlie14 wrote: »

It may have escaped you that before there would be any domestic metering we were promised that we would have a system fit for purpose.
Now a simple question, as you have been guessing on household side leaks. how many household side leaks do you believe, considering volume and pressure, would be equivalent to a major mains leak ?

I havent been guessing, I've been reading the published information.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Any concrete evidence of this? And you might want to think before you reply.

Well back in 2015 7% of the installed meters showed leaks on customer side with an estiamted 46Ml/day leaking on the customers side.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0330/690949-water-meters/

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Dont tax payers self evaluate Property tax?

Not like it hasn't been covered about 100 times at this stage, but samples by way of district meters could have done the same thing, at a fraction of the cost.

With the only down side being that they give that same fraction of information!
You have yet to explain how a meter on each end of a towns supply gives you ANY information on leaks within that town.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The mask always slips sooner or later.... by the way, the biggest chunk of welfare payments goes on pensions.... The OAPs might just disagree that they get free water.... they that have contributed to the states coffers for years.

Yesh the mask, because Im the bogeyman who wants you to pay your way.
Unless you are paying for what you use, YOU ARE NOT paying for water.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It's not different to gas and electricity? Let's kill that argument right now....

Who here gets an electric or gas allowance, and only pays for either or when they exceed said allowance?

Anyone???

Its no different in so far as its a resource that you pay as you use, based on your usage.

Chips Lovell

There's far too many people taking swipes at other posters rather than engaging in debate. If you're looking for trench warfare, this isn't the place.

Be nice. Play the ball, not the man please.

tom1ie

GreeBo wrote: »

What exactly do you think they are going to do with any surplus?
Give out dividends?

You need your head examined if you think that IW are going to cream millions in profits and not repair the infrastructure.


eh hello?
The meters are the thing that give you more than the vaguest notion of how much water is leaked on the customer side.
They MEASURE water. Thats their job.


I havent been guessing, I've been reading the published information.


Well back in 2015 7% of the installed meters showed leaks on customer side with an estiamted 46Ml/day leaking on the customers side.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0330/690949-water-meters/


With the only down side being that they give that same fraction of information!
You have yet to explain how a meter on each end of a towns supply gives you ANY information on leaks within that town.

Yesh the mask, because Im the bogeyman who wants you to pay your way.
Unless you are paying for what you use, YOU ARE NOT paying for water.

Its no different in so far as its a resource that you pay as you use, based on your usage.

Wow.

Ok have you looked to see if other semi state companies are paying massive dividends out of the “profits” they generate? Say for example esb? 1.5 billion over 10 years. Why would it be any different with iw?
Yes they’ll use the profits to put into infrastructure for the first while but then it’ll start going into dividends and ceo’s Pay packets etc etc.
I honestly cant believe you don’t realize that.
As I’ve said if this was not allowed I’d have no problem paying water charges.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/0929/908412-esb-half-year-results/