1998 Fianna Fáil & Labour Party Dáil debate in lead up to the European Water Framework Directive

What has 1998 got to do with Ireland's present day 'Water Charges' crisis, you might ask?

If a river is polluted you would be advised to investigate the source of contamination.  In the case of Ireland's' Water Charges', the problems stem generally from European and international financial pressures to privatise water and charge households for it's supply.  This pressure has been put on Ireland ever since joining the European Union in 1973.

In the 1990's the European Union interference and the vacillation of political parties over water charges and privatisation of this resource resulted in widespread public resentment.   Public opposition was so great in 1996 that it caused the demise of the 24th Rainbow Government of Fine Gael, Labour Party and Democratic Left, with the result of a new Fianna Fáil/Progresssive Democrats coalition in 1997.  One of the new government's promises was to stand up to Brussels and not introduce water charges.   Sinn Fein voted for Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach of the new government.

Just before the departure of the Rainbow Government, in December 1996,  on the eve of the general election,  Brendan Howlin, Minister for Environment announced that they would replace their proposed water charges with a new system in which motor tax collected in each area would be the source for local council funding. 

In particular, Ireland's present day water policy is legally bound by the Water Framework Directive 2000-60-EC, (WFD), a European agreement which was agreed and signed in 2000.  It has to be said that this piece of environmental legislation is, in the main,  worthwhile, especially with regards to it's pollution, preservation and water policy generally.  However,  problems arose here in Ireland and in Brussels due to the interpretation of the Directive.   Depending on political ideology controversy arose mainly around fundingand ownership of water resources.  Ireland's objections after the 1997 elections,  eventually resulted in the inclusion of Article 9.4, (The Irish Exemption), in the WFD and the acceptance of the principle of 'Subsidiarity' established in the Treaty of Maastricht  in 1992.

The following debate Dáil Éireann in 1998 between Emmett Stagg, Labour Party, and Noel Dempsey, Fianna Fáil, and others, epitomises the controversy and shows how Noel Dempsey, the Environment Minister was Ireland's negotiator and signator of the Water Framework Directive.

 

 

Thursday, 5 March 1998 Dáil Éireann Debate Vol. 488 No. 3

Mr. Stagg    asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government  "inthe discussions, if any, he or his officials have had with the EU Commission or its representatives regarding charging for domestic water in Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter."

Mr. Dempsey:   "The draft EU Water Framework Directive presented by the European Commission in February 1997 provided for full cost recovery for water use, including sewerage services and environmental and resource costs, with some exceptions which would allow for a basic level of domestic water use at an affordable price.

Since the outset, the Commission has been advised of Ireland's opposition to the proposed charging provisions as they relate to domestic consumers. I and officials of my Department have continued to reiterate at every appropriate opportunity Ireland's objections in this regard. In July 1997 I wrote to the EU Environment Commissioner indicating this Government's position on the matter and I stated that we would not reconsider the issue of water charges for Irish consumers. I also made our position known to the UK Minister for the Environment in the course of our discussions on the UK's EU Presidency programme.

We have also maintained our opposition to charging domestic consumers in the course of consideration of the Commission's proposals at meetings at official level preparatory to consideration of the proposals by the Council of Environment Ministers. It is my intention to continue to oppose any provisions which seek to reintroduce charging for domestic uses of water in Ireland.

During discussions on 28 November 1997 in relation to EU Regional and Cohesion funding for infrastructural projects, the Commissioner for Regional Affairs referred to the Commission's decision to reduce the Cohesion aid rate for Irish environmental projects from 85 per cent to 80 per cent on account of the decision to abolish charges for public domestic water supplies and referred to the difficulties created vis-à-vis “the polluter pays” principle. In reply, I reaffirmed and explained the Government's policy on the matter.

At the launch of my Department's 1998 water and sewerage investment programme in Killaloe on 2 February 1998, I reaffirmed to the Commission official present in the clearest possible terms the Government's policy on non-charging for domestic water supplies.

Mr. Stagg:  " I welcome the new position adopted by the Minister's party on water charges. My party and I have been opposed to water charges for some time. The Minister will be aware that the previous Government abolished water charges. Can he assure us that, having regard to what is happening in Europe, the Government will not allow the reimposition of water charges?

Mr. Dempsey:   "The Deputy said he and his party have always been opposed to water charges. While the Deputy may have held this view for a number of years, it is not clear his party always held that view. It put local authorities in a position where they had to impose these charges.

The Government has not changed its position on water charges. We intend to maintain the position outlined in the programme for Government. Our arguments against water charges are soundly based on the principle of subsidiarity. We believe it is a matter for national Governments to decide whether to impose charges. We are making it clear to the EU that we regard the imposition of charges as in conflict with subsidiary principles."

Mr. Gilmore:   I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply to the supplementary from Deputy Stagg and the number of times he has told the Commissioner of the Government'sopposition to the reintroduction of charges. Will he state categorically that domestic householders will not be charged for the use of water and the provision of sewage treatment services because there seems to be some ambiguity between the Government and the Minister, particularly in his reply to Deputy Stagg, that there might be an imposition of charges by the EU?

Mr. Dempsey:  " I give an absolute, total, categorical assurance that this Government will continue its opposition to any proposals put forward by the EU Commission. If proposals are put forward and pursued we intend to fight them. Proposals were put forward during the time of the previous Government and, in keeping with its policy, I intend to oppose them."

Mr. Hayes: What is the nature of the discussions the Minister has embarked upon with the European Commission? It appears from his reply there have been three discussions since he took office. Is it the Minister's view that the European Commission sees this as the end of the matter? It has reduced from 85 per cent to 80 per cent the amount of grants made available to some programmes. Will there be further reductions in the various grants?

Mr. Dempsey:   As I do not have the gift of foresight, I cannot say whether this is the end of the matter. Since February 1997 the framework directive on water policy, which introduced the concept of charges for water, has been under discussion. The initial position of the Commission was that: “by 20.10 member states shall ensure full cost recovery for all costs for services provided for water uses overall and by economic sector, broken down at least into households, industry and agriculture”. That was its position as outlined on 25 February 1997. There are ongoing discussions on that EU Directive and I expect further discussion on it at the March council meeting.

In respect of the discussions I have had with the Commission, my first contact was in July 1997 when the Commissioner wrote to congratulate me on my appointment as Minister for the Environment and Local Government and requested that I revisit the decision of the previous Government on the position of water charges. I replied thanking the Commissioner for her good wishes and explained fully the Government decision. This was not a discussion but an exchange of letters. The other two occasions have been outlined in the question. When Mr. Verstringer was here and the matter was raised with him at a press conference he made the EU position clear. I availed of the opportunity to reiterate our position in relation to charges. It has been stated by the EU that we are the only member state that does not impose charges for domestic water. That is not the case. In Luxembourg there is opposition in [562] principle to imposing water charges. Its Government ruled out the imposition of water charges three years ago and in Greece there are no charges. We have been arguing on the principle of subsidiarity and from the point of view of social and public health considerations and that it is in conflict with our policy.

Mr. Gilmore:  . Will the Minister accept that the cost of providing water is already being met by taxpayers through the general taxation system? Is it not a matter for the Government to decide rather than the European Union seeking to intervene in the manner in which the State collects taxes and recovers charges?

Eamon Gilmor (left), Brendan Howlin (right), Labour Party, source: RTE News, 2016

Mr. Dempsey:  " That is our position. I agree with the Deputy that it is a matter for us to decide, in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, how people should pay for water. The only sector not charged for water is the domestic sector. We have made this point strongly.

We are trying to ensure water charges are not imposed on the domestic sector. I am satisfied we are doing a good job."

Written Answers. - Water Charges.

Thursday, 19 November 1998 Dáil Éireann Debate Vol. 497 No. 1

Trevor Sargent, GP

 Mr. Sargent    asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government    if he will report on his meeting with Mr. Verstrynge, Environment Deputy Director General of the EU; his views on whether the Government is under renewed pressure to reintroduce domestic water charges from the European Commission; if the new proposed water framework directive will require full application of the polluter pays approach; if the polluter pays principle was enshrined in the Amsterdam Treaty which Ireland ratified"

Mr Dempsey:   "At a recent conference on environmental benefits of Cohesion Fund investment in Ireland, I had an informal meeting with Mr. Verstrynge, Deputy Director General of DG XI of the European Commission, at which we discussed a range of matters, including the application of the polluter pays principle in Ireland. I outlined the Government's position in this regard and stated our continued opposition to the reintroduction of domestic water charges.

The current draft of the EU Water Framework Directive, on which common understanding was reached at the Environment Council in June, proposes that member states shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services in accordance with the polluter pays principle. It would allow member states to have regard, inter alia, to the social, environmental and economic effects of the recovery. The current draft of Article 12 of the directive takes account of the view that it should be a matter for member states to determine charging policy in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. I stated my intention at the June Council to continue to exempt domestic water services from water charges.

The polluter pays principle is enshrined in Article 34 of the Amsterdam Treaty which amends the terms of Article 130r of the Maastricht Treaty."

Source: Dail Question-Water Charges March 1998
             Written Answers -Water Charges Nov 1998


Water Framework Directive, River Basin Management Plan, 9.4 Exemption, Fianna Fáil, Right2Water Trade Unions. A case of Ryan's Daughter

We run the risk of being boring but feel it is important to focus attention and zone in on some highly significant events in the long saga of the Irish 'Water Charges' controversy.   The events we will highlight here and in future articles are; 1) The Water Framework Directive-2000/60/EC', 2)  Ireland's River Basin Management Plan, 3)  Article 9.4, the Irish Exemption, 4) The Water Services Act 2013 and 5) EU/IMFBank Bailout of 2010.   

Because of the relevance of these events and how the Government and EU bureaucrats interpret and use them, one would think that the anti water charges' campaign leaders would delve into these cornerstones of Irish and EU Water Policies.  For whatever reason they are not.  The Government and pro 'Water Charges' lobby are being allowed set the agenda, pick and choose selective interpretations,  misrepresent events and rely on secrecy.

They should not be let them off the hook easily.  Instead their versions of facts must be countered, historical inaccuracies highlighted and political intrigues and revisionism exposed.  Like the sleeked, slimy, two faced, greedy shopkeeper and publican, Tom Ryan, in Ryan's Daughter, we are being duped into thinking that politicians and individuals are on our side when in fact these very same erstwhile supporters are pursuing their own agenda whether it be party opportunism or personal aggrandisement.     

Despite what any Minister, EU bureaucrat or IMF/EU Troika official say the fact remains that the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC and Article 9.4 of the directive is in force today and our water policy is being driven by the first cycle of the River Basin Management Plan, the main stipulation in the Water Framework Directive.  No amount of political juggling or threats can change this.  How can anyone have plans and agreements if they do not stick to them?


Not only should the anti water charge movement to try to find out the truth about the events, it should also hold to account all those who have made the water issue a political football for the past forty years.   This dogged pursuit by the political elite, the EU bureaucrats and international financiers has been relentless.  It is hard to accept the hypocrisy of sidestepping the democratic wish of the Irish people that our water resource should belong to the people of Ireland and funded through general taxation.  What is just as hard to accept is the belief that politicians seem to have that their actions, misrepresentations, rhetoric and even lies are acceptable, their reason being that it's the nature of politics.   

Buncrana Together have written quite a bit already on the above events (search our archives for Water Framework Directive or 9.4 exemption), however, we feel there is much more to come out and that the anti water chargescampaign has lost focus or worse led down the garden path. We are being fooled into thinking that 'Water Charges is as good as abolished'.  Indeed the charges have been suspended but only until Minister Coveney's hand picked 'Independent Commission on Domestic Water Charges' reports back sometime after November this year, after which a vote will be taken on the issue in the Dáil. Members of Fianna Fáil are the biggest culprits in spreading this line.  However, what they do not tell about are events that are happening behind the scenes, events like the second cycle of the River Basin Management Plan.   We say never mind what you might do next year, what are you doing now?  We have asked Fianna Fáil what is their position on the Water Framework Directive, the River Basin Management Plan and the 9.4 Exemption.  To date we have had no reply.  

It is one thing for politicians and EU bureaucrats to manipulate facts, to act in secret, ignore citizens.  We have, somehow, got used to this political chicanery.  However it is another thing altogether when those on the side of the anti water charges' campaign also ignore seemingly vital events.   The Right2Water Trade Union assumed leaders have also ignored requests for explanations and to concentrate on the Water Framework Directive, the River Basin Management Plan and the 9.4 Exemption.    In doing so they are allowing the pro water charges' camp, (and maybe not pro camps), to dictate the agenda and use selective propaganda without being questioned.  It is a case of 'Nero fiddled while Rome burned'.

River Basin Management Districts

Would it surprise you know that right at this moment the Government the Irish River Basin Management Districts are actively engaged in drafting the second stage of the River Basin Management Plan?   

What is so significant about this second cycle River Basin Management Plan, is that it will be Ireland's de facto Water Policy into the future.  If it is allowed to continue,  unopposed, it will include 'Pricing Policy', including domestic water charges,  'Metering' and the entity and structure of Irish Water Ltd will be firmly entrenched.  It will quietly ignore the 9.4 Exemption and our long established practice of Water Policy will end.   The new River Basin Management Plan will become part of EU Water Policy, signed sealed and delivered.  

No matter what some may lead you to believe now, when the time comesand all the plans are put in placethe same political parties and individualwho told us to have faith, will wash their hands of it and say 'the decision has already been made'.

By Bjørn Christian Tørrissen - The beach between Slea Head and Dunmore Head on the Dingle Peninsula, Ireland, location where scenes for Ryan's Daughter were filmed.


Did Alan Kelly mislead the Irish People about Article 9.4 of the Water Framework Directive?

Alan Kelly, Labour Party TD is unrepentant about the position he took regarding the Water Framework Directive 2000 and in particular Article 9.4 while Minister for the Environment in the former Fine Gael/Labour Government.  As Minister he was head of the Department responsible for the introduction and implementation of the controversial 'Water Charges. 

Alan Kelly, Labour Party, former Minister responsible for 'Water Charges'

In his personal web page on June 29, 2016 he wrote "Personally, I believe there is a strong possibility that this Bill is contrary to EU law, which has constitutional primacy over acts of the Oireachtas. I have repeated numerous times the fact that we no longer have an EU derogation from Water Charges and this has been confirmed by Commissioner Vella this week. There is no legal basis whatsoever for scrapping water charges. So given how clear this fact now is how can Minister Coveney bring forward legislation knowing full well that we don’t have a derogation on having water charges and therefore we can’t stop charging for them? I was always advised that legally we had no choice but to have water charges as our derogation was gone since 2010 so how could this advice have changed?"  http://www.alankelly.ie.

Alan Kelly a few short years ago was told different

Only a few short years ago,  Alan Kelly, while an MEP at the time and member of the Labour Party which opposed water charges (thejournal.ie, Mar,2015), received a different explanation on Article 9.4 from the European Commission.

 

In a written question to the Commission E3366/10, May 12, 2010, Alan Kelly asked

"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?"

 

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission, June 21, 2010

"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 fulfills the requirements in Article 9(1), in particular with respect to whether it provides an adequate incentive for users to use water efficiently."

 

Sources;
Kathy Sinnott, Irish Times, Nov 21, 2014'Why the Irish Government is not required to implements water charges on ouseholds'

Colette Browne, Irish Independent, Aug 4, 2015, Eu rules did not compel Ireland to bring in water charges - our politicians chose to do it.

The Journal.ie Mar 15, 2015, 'How Labour considered water charges, meters and an 'ESB for water' five years ago'