Clare County Council Giving Away Public Land To Privately Owned Irish Water

grassroots

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
2,417
I am familiar with quangos. There is a difference, but a slim difference between semi-states and quangos. I only used the term as to emphasis the fact its not an elected body nor is it fully accountable to the government, as it is a for profit organisation with stock holders.
Who owns the stock?
 


Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
36,016
Did anyone else read this?

Ryan withdraws objection to ESB land transfer - The Clare Courier



Shannon needs a new treatment plant. Thanks to the new Irish Water company, which we are being forced by law to pay, they are building it to meet their own governmental requirements. For some reason though the CCC have decided to 'gift' this private company, which we all will be paying shortly, a parcel of land on which they will develop this new plant.

Why is the CCC giving away our public land for free? Irish Water have a budget and make profits. They are a private company. Why should land owned by the people of Clare be given for free of any charge to a private company who by law are going to have to build the plant anyway? We are not only being forced to pay a private company for water, we are now being asked to fund the at least part of the private companies required construction on top of the normal water charges and apparently none of the CCC seem to have a problem with this.

Anyone else bothered by this?
Who owns Irish Water?
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
36,016
Nope, that was never even mentioned. Per the argument against made by Cllr. PJ Ryan, why is the council giving away land to a company which pays its CEO €200,000 a year?

The answer wasn't 'because we have to contribute to the scheme' the answer given which was reported was they need the plant and as they do not want IW dragging their feet, so they are giving them a gift free land (that belongs to the people of Clare).

If they have a CEO and that CEO makes almost a quarter of a million a year they can't really say they are a 'state owned' entity. They make profits, they have a CEO, they pay six figures to board members. They can afford to pay for any land they need in Clare.
The HSE has a CEO who is paid more than a quarter mil a year. Does that mean the HSE is a private enterprise? OK, they make losses but would that be your defining issue....profit????
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
36,016
I am familiar with quangos. There is a difference, but a slim difference between semi-states and quangos. I only used the term as to emphasis the fact its not an elected body nor is it fully accountable to the government, as it is a for profit organisation with stock holders.
Really? Is Company Law between 1963 and 2012 slim? Try reading the circa 16 distinct pieces of Companies Acts enacted in the past 50 years and then tell me if you still think the difference is slim.
 

dizillusioned

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
14,545
I do not see an issue with this at the moment. Where I do see an issue is in the future. I think it is pretty obvious Irish Water will be sold to private investors. This is where the issue arrises. Bumping up the asset value and being paid for by the tax payer. Underhanded in the extreme.
 

Dunlin3

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
3,174
I do not see an issue with this at the moment. Where I do see an issue is in the future. I think it is pretty obvious Irish Water will be sold to private investors. This is where the issue arrises. Bumping up the asset value and being paid for by the tax payer. Underhanded in the extreme.
In that case why are they not selling off the electricity network (ok some power stations have been sold) or gas network infrastructure? I think the lesson learnt from Eircom and the rail privatisations in the UK is that you hold on to the network infrastructure. Can't see the water infrastructure being sold and the current legislation doesn't allow for it. Some future govenment is going to have to make that call if that's the route they want to go down.
 

dizillusioned

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
14,545
In that case why are they not selling off the electricity network (ok some power stations have been sold) or gas network infrastructure? I think the lesson learnt from Eircom and the rail privatisations in the UK is that you hold on to the network infrastructure. Can't see the water infrastructure being sold and the current legislation doesn't allow for it. Some future govenment is going to have to make that call if that's the route they want to go down.
If infrastructure remains then fine, however, I am not liking what I am seeing with Irish Water. The proof of the pudding is in the sale :)
 

Ren84

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
49,046
I do not see an issue with this at the moment. Where I do see an issue is in the future. I think it is pretty obvious Irish Water will be sold to private investors. This is where the issue arrises. Bumping up the asset value and being paid for by the tax payer. Underhanded in the extreme.
If Bord Gais and the ESB are anything to go by Irish Water will likely in the future be split into two entities: maintenance and operation of the water distribution network; and the customer supply unit. The latter would likely be privatised, as was the case with Bord Gais Energy, the customer supply arm to British Gas owners Centrica. And you know what, this is an entirely sensible and logical step.

The state doesn't need to own and operate the utility customer supply businesses. As long as the physical infrastructure of the electricity (ESB+Eirgrid), gas (Gas Networks Ireland/Ervia) and water (Irish Water/Ervia) networks are kept in public hands I see no issue here. In fact I would like to see the government merge all three infrastructure networks into one super grid, that could save millions on combining its vehicle repair fleet, callout crews and backroom staff.
 

Edo

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
3,043
If infrastructure remains then fine, however, I am not liking what I am seeing with Irish Water. The proof of the pudding is in the sale :)
Well then vote for a party that doesn't do privatisation - that means don't vote for FG as they are the only party that will touch privatisation with a barge pole at the moment- and they have no plans to privatise the water company - that gives you Labour, the new left wing FF, SF and a host of others who all to do the populist thing.

It is highly doubtful that FG will be part of the next government - Irish Water will remain and the water charges will remain whoever makes up the next government because it does 3 things that left of centre politicians adore -1) the responsibility is at arms length , 2)the revenue stream is very useful to people who dream about wasting other peoples money and 3, the work will actually get done and the system will be modernised over the next 10 years with the minimum of state interference.

Irish Water is not going to be privatised a la the UK - it will be like the water companies in the rest of the EU - a joint stock company owned in full by the State.

BTW - fair play to whatever organisation gets to grip with the sewage problem in shannon - gas masks will be required for motorists between the airport and Cratloe soon - its absolutely dire - totally overwhelms the smell from the graveyard at the end of the runway that the CIA use.
 
Last edited:

DarkCloud

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2014
Messages
4,866
Twitter
Not on twitter.
I think it is pretty obvious Irish Water will be sold to private investors. This is where the issue arrises. Bumping up the asset value and being paid for by the tax payer. Underhanded in the extreme.
I agree with you 100%. Everything about this entity stinks to high to high heaven.
 

Bleu Poppy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,485
Did anyone else read this?

Ryan withdraws objection to ESB land transfer - The Clare Courier



Shannon needs a new treatment plant. Thanks to the new Irish Water company, which we are being forced by law to pay, they are building it to meet their own governmental requirements. For some reason though the CCC have decided to 'gift' this private company, which we all will be paying shortly, a parcel of land on which they will develop this new plant.

Why is the CCC giving away our public land for free? Irish Water have a budget and make profits. They are a private company. Why should land owned by the people of Clare be given for free of any charge to a private company who by law are going to have to build the plant anyway? We are not only being forced to pay a private company for water, we are now being asked to fund the at least part of the private companies required construction on top of the normal water charges and apparently none of the CCC seem to have a problem with this.

Anyone else bothered by this?
I suppose that bother might arise, if Irish Water was a private company.

But it's not.

Irish Water is a semi-state commercial sector entity, the share-holding of which is held by no less that three Government Ministers (reflecting the company's origins and development) on behalf of the Irish people.

The Irish people have, either through their rates, direct or indirect taxes, and by way of charges paid to other commercial sector semi-state companies, paid for the assets transferred to Irish Water.

So.... as they'd say in Dublin, "Give up yer auld lies"!
 

Dunlin3

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
3,174
If Bord Gais and the ESB are anything to go by Irish Water will likely in the future be split into two entities: maintenance and operation of the water distribution network; and the customer supply unit. The latter would likely be privatised, as was the case with Bord Gais Energy, the customer supply arm to British Gas owners Centrica. And you know what, this is an entirely sensible and logical step.

The state doesn't need to own and operate the utility customer supply businesses. As long as the physical infrastructure of the electricity (ESB+Eirgrid), gas (Gas Networks Ireland/Ervia) and water (Irish Water/Ervia) networks are kept in public hands I see no issue here. In fact I would like to see the government merge all three infrastructure networks into one super grid, that could save millions on combining its vehicle repair fleet, callout crews and backroom staff.
Totally agree Ren84. Long term there will be no real value in the state holding on to the customer service/billing arm of Irish Water. It may even free up some competition in retail arms so that you can also purchase your water through your gas or electricity provider. The infrastructure will remain in state hands.
 

Ren84

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
49,046
Totally agree Ren84. Long term there will be no real value in the state holding on to the customer service/billing arm of Irish Water. It may even free up some competition in retail arms so that you can also purchase your water through your gas or electricity provider. The infrastructure will remain in state hands.
I would be happy with that, in time. The same should be true for Irish Rail, Bus Eireann and Dublin Bus.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,741
Councils should never give land away for free . If they could produce enough bullish¡t to justify it then they could have leased the land away for 50 or even 100 years with a starting rent of zero until poor Denis O Brien et al manage to scrape up enough change for a hostel. Hell even a 999 year lease would be better terms than giving away for free . Whatever happened to nation building, we dont seem to do that lol
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom