Same Old Watery Road

By AM Monday, December 19, 2016

Share Tweet Share Share Email

Anti-Water charge activist James Quigley from Donegal responds to a recent article by Joe Dalton.

Mr Dalton's article The Irish Water Sector A Sorry Tale is pretty long. 


Unfortunately it could take just as long to answer his many arguable points.  My first impression was whoa! why is he writing a regurgitation of all this now?   But I have to concur with him that Irish Water sector is indeed in a very sorry tale although not in the way he thinks.

Another, off topic thought I had was whoa! why is TPQ even printing it?

We have been down this road many, many times countering these conservative, neoliberal capitalist elitist arguments as Mr Dalton quite rightly says for  decades?  Yet here he is still using what can only be described as a status quo argument and corporate policy of best, most cost effective, efficient way of providing a water system in Ireland.

The answer, in my mind, is that best, efficiency and effectiveness are all subjective terms depending on one's political viewpoint, outlook and will.  It is not just through the prism of pounds, shillings and pence or to computed data that we  assess  best,  effectiveness or efficiency.  One may have to take a circuitous route to get there.  It may take a longer route but in the end this may be more satisfying, fair and dare I say best, efficient and effective. 

The way Mr Dalton started his article by saying that 'Ireland is on a different planet to the rest of the world'  is  condescending and misleading.  He maintains this condescending manner throughout.   It could be that he has spent a long time  in the lofty towers of Bahrain where he has exported his political beliefs and his engineering expertise, accompanied by his corporate ethos, that is a factor in his thinking that Ireland is a universe away.

However, there is something to what he says though, but maybe  not in way he means, when he says 'Ireland is almost unique'.  Isn’t that a paradox, you are either unique or not, can one be almost unique? Anyway, I agree that Ireland is indeed unique,  like any county, in its people, culture, environment and resources. 

It is this uniqueness that should determine policies not only on water but generally how we organise society.  Sometimes there is a fine line between  common or global policies and bureaucratic nonsense but there is a major one between democracy, freedom to choose and  corporate/multinational imperialism.  What fits in one country does not fit another. Countries can agree on say environmental and sustainable issues but how one interprets these whether it is Bahrain or Berlin should be a matter for individual countries. 

Whether Mr Dalton is too long looking at things in an academic, analytical, technical way or  succumbed to multinational corporate economic arguments,  his way of thinking is indeed at odds with 'many of his fellow countrymen'.

This  uniqueness is getting at the crux of the argument and unwittingly he has hit it.  Most of his countrymen and women are at odds with him, with the Government, with corporate thinking, with EU and global pressure and have been for a very long time, as he quite rightly says since the 1980s.  

I have been involved in all three campaigns against the introduction of water charges.  In Buncrana during the first campaign in the 80's led by the National Assoc of Tenants Organisations against EU pressure and Fine Gael/Labour capitulation,  my family and three others in the town had our water supply  cut off for over a year.  We were also brought to court.  This happened in various parts in Ireland but our determination forced the Government to abandon water charges.

Mr Dalton has got his the historical sequence of events more or less right but for a more class oriented approach have a read of these perspectives.

Winning The Water War

Were Winning...Self Activity in the Key

Lessons from beating the water charges in the 1990s

Mr Dalton's arguments are perhaps futile given that water charges as he envisions  them are dead in the water, hopefully not to surface again.  Even a commission of his peers, hand-picked by Minister Coveney, the 'Expert Commission on Domestic Water Services'  more or less said this in  their final report officially submitted to the Dáil last week.

The Commission report section 5.2.1 stated:

Having considered various options and the background to the current situation, the Expert Commission has reached the conclusion that the optimal arrangement that should now be put in place is one that involves the funding of water services, fro normal domestic and personal use, as a charged against taxation

It should be noted that finally we have at last, got some objective facts and figures albeit in a roundabout way and sifted through the calculus at the other end of the political divide.

However, even Mr Dalton can not ignore the conclusions.  And also maybe acknowledge a couple of other vital and important facts in the commission's report that seem to have been missed or sidelined by politicians, the media and himself.  

The Commission acknowledged the groundswell of opinion in Ireland and that most vital element in anything - trust. In my view this is one of the most important and essential facts, the lack of trust that the Irish people have in the Government and Irish Water Ltd, that has come out of the Commission's report.  The report could not have been any clearer on this stating the importance of trust several times. 

They go on to say that trust has to be developed and that the Irish people must be part of the decision process.  I have to commend the Commission for highlighting aspect of the whole process.  Maybe Mr Dalton and TDs, some of whom are presently deliberating the Commission's report in a special Oireachtas Committee, might take heed of this vital information.  Maybe the media might report the Commission's conclusions properly and not, as usual dwell on incidental, division sensationalism, pitting one section of the community against the other i.e. those who paid and those who did not, people with wells etc.

The other titbit of the Commission's report which seems to be glossed over is their reference to

'the most recent consumption data suggests that Ireland is at the lower end of the spectrum of EU countries with regard to domestic consumption'. (Section 2.3.6.)

This little bit of info is highly significant not only in the circuitous argument but also in the trust and role of the Irish population point.  Either the Irish are a dirty lot, not washing themselves or they buck the politicians and corporate view that we are inherently civic minded.  I know this may be hard for politicians, business and the corporate world to comprehend but which is it?  I go with civic minded.  That is why we have been fighting the establishments propaganda for decades.

I classify myself as a proponent 'against charging people for water'. I believe that access to clean drinking water and sanitation should be a human right.  We eat, we drink, we defecate, the natural process of life.  That is something we can not package up and commodify.  It should not be subject to political or market forces nor should one's basic human needs be subject to affordability. I think that the mark of a progressive society our quality of life, and how we utilise our expertise and resources  for the benefit of all, equally and fairly.

Mr Dalton says "Personally, I am not ideologically hung up on the whole public versus private issue." he goes on to say:

It is a fact that the more successful Irish Water becomes as a utility organisation, the more attractive it would become to a potential private operator. However this does not make privatisation inevitable or even desirable. It is a very weak argument that keeps water services dysfunctional just to guarantee that there will be no privatisation.

And then says "my own preference is for an effective public utility. Water Charges and Metering in the rest of the World."

Firstly I think, Mr Dalton,  should acknowledge that his preference for privatisation sticks out a mile.  He is playing with words. On the one hand he has no preference either way but on the other hand his preference is ‘public utility’.  Well good for him, he can swing both ways. However, this type of argument can described as 'marketing jargon'.   This stance, sitting on the fence, can only be interpreted as ‘privatisation’ by stealth.

He uses words like 'hung up' and dysfunctional', disparaging flippant remarks throughout the piece. How dare he look down on the public who if it was not for years of hardship, courage and commitment our water resource would by now be owned by the Kingdom of Bahrain managed by the likes of him.  How dare he make little of the question of privatisation.  Not too sure what he means by 'rest of world' but the statement is sweeping and again somehow referring to Ireland being out of step. 

What does  he mean by his preference for a 'public utility'?  Is it run on a commercial basis, possibly outsourcing the infrastructure and the day to day work  to private corporations? This is actually happening and the question of 'public' and 'private' is getting more and more blurred.

Many of the Anti Water Charges campaigners, possible not R2W trade unions, are very interested in this very notion of 'Public Utility', it's role and the role of local authorities.  This was hinted at in the Commission report, however, as said before, it was not in the terms of reference.  However, they do mention:

Given our earlier recommendation to guarantee Irish Water in public ownership and the proposed funding model, the Expert Commission is of the opinion that the Irish Government, Irish Water and its parent company Ervia may need to fundamentally re-assess the funding model for investment, since a number of the assumptions that were originally made (e.g. Irish Water would be treated off the General Government Balance Sheet) are no longer valid. (5.3.5)

This is interesting and I take it that the Oireachtas must look at the role of Irish Water and how our water infrastructure is organised.  Mr Dalton does not go into this but it is clear that the idea of Irish Water Ltd as devised must be fundamentally reviewed.  

Given what the Commission said about public trust and support, some of us would argue a case for a central public utility, incorporating local authorities expertise, doing the work on the ground as they are doing and have been doing up to now with very limited budgets.  Costs are a factor but not the only one.  Control of our resources, the number of people employed locally and peoples’ input and access to the system, all must be considered. 

We have to counteract what is happening now, outsourcing our water infrastructure to multinational companies. If this is allowed to happen there will be job losses: profits will go abroad and all this funded by the Irish taxpayer.

Mr Dalton talks about metering as if it was the only way to efficiency.  Well it's not.  Meters are a way of itemising use to maximise charges.  Take for example the change over from analogue meters to smart meters in electricity.  We hear about efficiency and cost effectiveness but in reality cost to the consumer jumps and profits to the provider increases.  The arguments  are misleading.  Domestic users in Ireland  have never been metered but yet we use the least amount of water in the EU.  It is a fact that there is widespread leakage in the public system even before it is delivered to households.  Again the Commission refers to this in section 4.2.

district meters and other new technologies have been shown to be helpful in dis aggregating consumption data.  Where a pattern of excessive us is identified in non-metered households, some adjustment to the currently proposed arrangement may have to be considered.

The Commission's report would tally with local water engineers advising us that there is no need for the expense of installing meters in each house; that district meters run properly can take care of monitoring, usage and leakages.

The report also talks about the expense of metering and questions whether it is advisable to continue.  On the ground we have found that whatever metering that has been installed is of an inferior quality, prone to leaks and only lasts 10 years at a maximum.  Who will bear the brunt of the costs when the meters have to be renewed?  I would argue that they are neither cost effective or practical. 

The health and privacy aspect of 'smart meters' are not touched on.  This is something that is not discussed or highlighted even by the R2W trade unions but nevertheless it is a very valid argument against them.  Surely the ‘Precautionary Principle’ should apply especially when dealing with drinking water.

Again it must be stated that the Commission term of reference was ‘Domestic Service’ it was interesting to note in section 2.4.22:

There have also been problems noted with the collection rate for non-domestic charges, and according to Boyle (2012) ‘service indicator data for Irish local authorities shows that some local authorities have experienced significant difficulties with collecting water charges from non-domestic sector.’ And noting that the collection rate for commercial water charges was much worse that for other charges with almost half of water charges being unpaid across all local authorities (2012:22)

Commercial charging and metering have been an ‘established practice’ in Ireland as opposed to domestic which are  not. It also must be stated that since the 80’s the Irish Government has increased motor tax and vat.  This increase in taxation amounting to over 1.5 billion and counting was to go to the funding of water supply. 

I am glad Mr Dalton mentions the Water Framework Directive and specifically refers to Article 9.4.  It gives  me the opportunity to agree that indeed  this is ‘the most important piece of European water sector legislation’ but I would argue contrary to Mr Dalton that Article 9.4 was  unique to Ireland , an astute piece of legislation. I am not sure what he means referring to Article 9.4: “This is often quoted unconvincingly in support of a contention that Ireland is legally obliged to introduce water charges.”  However, from his subsequent statements I get the feeling that he regrets it’s inclusion and derides  it’s proposers: the Fianna Fáil party “ensured that Article 9 was ambiguous and open to interpretation”. 

Far from it being unclear and open to interpretation as Mr Dalton says, Buncrana Together is in no doubt about what the 9.4 Exemption means, about it’s relevance to Ireland’s water charges issue. See Buncrana Together article here and all the sources given. 

Mr Dalton’s explanations between some of his disparaging comments is quite lucid and informative.  However, I would go on, as the above Buncrana articles encourages, that Ireland should insist on the retention of this vital piece of EU legislation in our River Basin Management Plans. The 2^nd 2015-2021 is in the process of being drafted.  Again I have to criticise the R2W unions for not highlighting the 9.4 Exemption and not supplying any submission regarding it to the RBMP despite advise from members and the wider anti water charges groups that they should do so.

Conclusion

Despite not being quite on the same wavelength politically and I am guessing socially as Mr Dalton, I find that there is some common ground between us.   Ireland should have a state of the art water system and as he says “a real victory would be a successful national water utility that the Irish people are happy with and proud of.” 

However,  I would go further and say that such a utility and our water resource must be enshrined in the Constitution as well as the citizen’s right of a domestic water supply.  Any plan must  incorporate maximum employment locally and  ensure that ancillary projects and infrastructures are run and controlled in the public’s interest and not sub-contracted out to private corporations.

Finally I would put the record straight, to amend Mr Dalton’s perception of the Right to Water movement. There are many groups in Ireland that some independent and some that can generally come under the umbrella of R2W.  However, there are some subtle differences one being R2W Trade Unions run by Mr Ogle seem to have taken on the mantle as leaders of the movement.  Again Buncrana Together have written quite a bit on this and I would advise Mr Dalton that Mr Ogle’s account in his book is very much a subjective account.  And for a more in depth, objective on read Buncrana Together or Fliuch.org web site or indeed Anti Austerity Alliance who by the way has done more that any other for the state of play today especially their track record and their policy of ‘Boycott’.