Getting an education to be made thirsty work

national | anti-capitalism | opinion/analysis

Friday December 14, 2007 08:20

by Seán Ryan

Bertie blames water framework directive for water charges in schools.

Water charges are on the way for schools. This is despite underfunding already being endemic in Irish education - kids being taught in prefabs for example.

Questions are beginning to be asked as water meters are being installed in schools.

Bertie Ahern on Wednesday in the Dail, side-stepped responsibility for the extra burden on schools by declaring that it was the fault of the European Water Framework Directive: At that stage all the submissions for derogation were put forward. From this country’s point of view the big issue in those negotiations on the directive a decade ago was to achieve derogation for domestic water rates for residential use and we achieved that after a significant debate and battle. We did not achieve derogation in other areas, schools being one of those areas and therefore the EU water framework directive 1999 is being implemented.

School capitation grants have been increased over several years. The directive is based on methods of water conservation with which we are all in agreement. The programme for installing water meters in schools has commenced and it will take some time as there are more than 4,000 schools in the country. There is a need to achieve some kind of agreement on standards between the local authorities and the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and of Education and Science.

This is the implementation of the EU water framework directive. Metering will help but the framework directive is based on conservation of water and therefore is based on use. This is the law we signed up to in 1999.
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=DAL20071212...8#N28
From Wednesday 12 December 2007

Why is it only now that our elected representatives are asking questions about charges for water in our schools?

More than a year ago it was reported on Indymedia, on Tuesday October 24, 2006, to be precise. Water charges for schools was reported on too: The EU policy he is referring to is called the Water Framework Directive, which requires ‘pricing policies’ to be in place by 2010.

“He (Jim Cullen) added that the metering system was a requirement under an EU directive and it is designed to conserve water by encouraging users to waste less. It is based on the user pays principle and should benefit the environment.”

Very interesting bit of flawed logic in that last sentence as it is not water itself that costs money but rather the infrastructure, which is used by consumers equally. Therefore the costs, if any, should be borne equally by all consumers. I had assumed, wrongly it seems, that that is where our taxes went. Another double taxation anyone?

Schools and Farms, to take two examples, are high users, which under the ‘user pays’ principle would see their costs rocket. The social effect of this policy does not appear to have been a factor in the decision making process. As will become painfully apparent in a few short years when the domestic consumer is expected to pay for their water too, as per the European Water Framework Directive. And you thought the bin tax was unpopular!
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79249

This all comes amidst confirmation that children are leaving education in bigger numbers than ever. In Limerick recently it has finally been made public that in disadvantaged areas (most areas in Limerick) that the amount of children leaving school early has reached epidemic levels.

Well at least they'll need less water I suppose.

save preference

Comments (15 of 15)

A battle of many fronts

by Jolinar

Sun Jan 13, 2008 16:37

I'll tell you what though, a serious debate has fired up over on P.ie

If anything it gives a great insight into the type of propaganda the Pro-privatisation brigade are peddling. Some useful links and exposes of where they are coming from and how they are attempting to a) denounce the fact that privatisation by stealth is even occuring and b) using sophistry to underline the myth that Private companies deliver services better.

A lot of bluff to work through but thats how they cloud the issues.

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=29629

This DaveM is some mouthpiece but fair play to the boys who are chipping away at him.

No to service charges.

by Keep water Public

Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:21

Sean,

I would think that the LA's to date have provided an excellent service. Galway and Ennis are due to an ongoing under investment in infrastructure which as far as I am concerned is deliberate and and at the behest of the PDs to give further credence and urgency for privatisation.

You mentioned budgets but forgot to mention that budgets are only recommended by a County or City Council, that does not guarantee the funds in any way. The LA may have asked for funding to improve water infrastructure, the Council may have adopted and approved that funded which is then submitted for approval to the relevant department (usually undersigned by the County/City Manager). If the Department or the CM do not approve the funding (for what ever reason- the review process is far from transparent) the funding is not provided and the service deteriorates. The C.C. must them adopt the Book of Estimates minus the requested funded or face being dissolved.

There are plenty of cases of gombeenism and corrupt councillors across the state, but there are also genuine and decent councillors who have highlighted the appalling under-investment in Water infrastructor but have their hands tied by beaurocracy and frustration impositions placed on policy initiatives at cabinet level.

Given to date the performance of the LAs(the public servants working for Co.Co's across the state, not the elected reps) in the area of water in terms of quality under such circumstances I think they deserve a lot of credit.

Feigned ignorance

Sat Jan 12, 2008 17:24

Wilful ignorance is a terrible thing. Again, there is a primal principle behind the European Water Framework directive that is being conveniently ignored. This is all the more offensive as it is common sense too: "Polluter Pays."

With regard to infrastructure: It takes the same infrastructure to deliver 100 litres of water as it does to deliver 1 litre of water. Of course wear and tear is a consideration. Or rather it should be, as we well know, local authorities tend not to focus on wear and tear - hence the high rate of incidence with regard to contamination by sewage etc., not to mention leakage via an ancient and badly maintained infrastructure.

Services must be paid for, I recognise that. It seems to me that taxation is being gathered for the sole purpose of allowing supposed authorities to abdicate their functions and to facilitate the of selling of resources we already own and have paid for back to us again and again.

Why do these authorities exist in the first place, if not to provide these essential services within the budgets that they have requested and have been provided with? If this issue were to be looked at fully and the truth be told without fear or favour, it would be seen that local authorities are providing a disservice currently, not a service and, still the bills are on the way. And indeed that this disservice is a wilful one.

Water's gotta be treated

by Seamus

Sat Jan 12, 2008 14:00

Up to thirty years ago there were many rural areas where people still filled buckets with water from local wells, some on farms. There were village pumps where elderly people went with buckets, then carried them home, maybe twice a day. I knew of one old woman who in th early '60s paid local schoolboys thruppence to go down the street of a village and bring back a bucket of water.

Today even the old farm wells in the Wescht of Ireland and elsewhere have doubtful water - contaminated by residues from chemical fertilisers and maybe algae growth from excessive summer heat. So even if our celtic tiger farmers bother to fill their buckets the water would have to be treated or well-boiled to stave off disease and tummy upset.

All this means the water supply involves testing, filtering and pipe delivery to households. It don't come free in its tested and filtered condition. We gotta pay for the processing. I hope we pay the local authorities rather than privatised water companies.

Have youse dug any wells lately?

Kids recovering

by Barn Resident

Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:22

Water is still seeping from sewage system into flat's baths. There were two 11pm call
outs. The mums are saying that they will continue to harass the council because the
health issue is unacceptable. One of the kids is still suffering headaches that have 'lights'
and is low. They really should have blood tests...

I pray youngsters will be spared the cost of water so as to learn the meaning of cryptosporidium

by ur on bottled water now. - leah betts owes me a tenner too.

Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:12

& you know the brighter ones might get the plural right too. Now is that a latin or a greek root?

Water cycle?

by Sceptic

Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:42

Nonsense. The availability of a supply of water in a lake or whatever is only one aspect of the process. It is the pumping, treating, filtration, conveying to the population, the whole sanitation system and all the rest that is cost intensive. It would be helpful if the debate on water charges were not obscured by willful ignorance.

Don't piss down my back and tell me that it's raining

Fri Jan 11, 2008 22:27

I wonder has Sceptic ever heard of the phenomenon often called the water cycle?

The truth is that there is more than enough water for everyone in this country that needs it. That is the irony being referred to I believe.

As I've said before, allowing the water supply to become filthy and sub-standard (to understate the case) is to provide a reason for privatisation. The charges have arrived - next step - get everyone to complain about quality and then say that we don't have the resources to provide a quality service. That's ironic too. Moreso because it'll bloody work!

No Irony

Fri Jan 11, 2008 22:18

Glug you are displaying your ignorance. There is a big difference between a regulated supply of potable water and a flood.

the last thing we should be paying for in Ireland is water

by Glug

Fri Jan 11, 2008 19:34

Fermoy is under 3 feet of water, yet we'll be paying for the stuff soon. The irony!

3.50 water rates per child...in our schools.

by Dolphin's Barn Resident

Fri Jan 11, 2008 18:23

Over the last week three to four kids have been taken ill in the flats in the Barn. Parents have
had to call the council because raw sewage is seeping up into the bathrooms and hitting the
taps. The Corpo have sent teams to fix it but they just cut the pipes to drain it. the kids symptoms
include blinding headaches, vomiting and stomach pain. the dubdocs are giving urine tests,
and say the kids are too weak for blood tests, one was given a list of three pain-killers to mix
together but no anti-biotics. There are reports of sewage leaking into bathrooms in one of
the buildings from lots of families. The conditions are appalling and people are bleaching
their flats and boiling water. the ages of the sick kids vary, the youngest is two and a half.

Water charges still well ahead of schedule

Fri Dec 21, 2007 08:16

On Tuesday 18th of December Bertie Ahern announced that schools would be exempted from metered water charges for two years - though they will still be stuck with flat rate charges. (Anyone reminded of this 'exemptions' tactic accompanying the introduction of bin charges?) Considering that the EU Water Framework Directive specifies that charges must be implemented by 2010, this is all very academic. It's interesting to note that the aspects of the Directive that facilitate the State screwing its people are all on or ahead of schedule. Aspects like consultation for example: are years behind.

Other members of Ahern's clique are worried that we might be confused and imagine that nursing homes and creches are to be exempted too. Nobody will be exempted, we are under no illusions whatsoever, we've read the game plan too.

I have an idea that just might fill the coffers with cash. We have practically all the buildings in this country metered currently, in anticipiation of revenue for water, including our very inviolable homes. Why not meter the water at source too? From the readings at source, subtract the amount metered elsewhere and bill local government for the difference. The EU Water Framework Directive is afterall about efficiency and preventing wastage. It's not about these sick fucks turning a cheap trick into a massive profit.

Paying with our health and our money for dirty water

Mon Dec 17, 2007 15:36

Myself and Dick Roche are in agreement - I kid you not. Nobody's more surprised than I at this development.

The Irish Examiner ran an interesting story this morning:

In an apparent contradiction of statements from the Minister for Education, Mr Roche claimed it was an Irish governmental decision to introduce the water charges, which could now cost individual schools up to €10,000.

“We make the rules — this is nonsense to suggest that Europe or Brussels imposes something on us."
http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/story....1.asp

The Eu Water Framework Directive, as has been said on Indy many times, is not the bad guy. It's got some seemingly very decent goals in mind. But and it's a big 'but,' it is very open to interpretation and exploitation. Our government have consistantly cherry-picked it and have turned it into a framework for shafting the little guy.

An example at this point in the debate would be to point out many areas but especially Galway and Ennis (note that a school in Ennis is talked about above, where they've been hit for a water bill of €42,690): Both have been hit with an unclean water supply (cryptosporidium). Both have to purchase bottled water (In Galway a buy one get one free scheme somewhat lessened the extra financial burden imposed - no such scheme exists in Ennis). A primary objective of the EU Water Framework Directive is to implement a 'polluter pays' policy. Indeed our supposed Governement have paid it much lip service. However, it's the victims of pollution who have paid for it in this case.

Schools should not negotiate with local authorities on this issue. Send the bills to Ms Hanafin, she's the one charged with ensuring that the Education system does as it was established to do. It is not a bloody consumer waiting to be exploited.

FFS!!

Sat Dec 15, 2007 14:04

A school in Ennis has been hit with a bill for water for €42,690. It cannot afford to pay - no surprise there.

"The Ennis school, which has 660 pupils, has 16 prefabs and a main building with a flat roof which accumulates rain.

Dampness

"It's like we have a swimming pool on the roof and to make matters worse we have 18 internal drains which simply spread the dampness more evenly. Sometimes I feel like the captain of an Educational Titanic," he told the Irish Independent."
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/schools-8364426....html

Looks like Hanafin is as good at her job as Harney.

Hope those good folks in Ennis realise that there is legislation in place that allows for them to be cut off. That'll make quite a headline if and when it happens.

Trite exercise in 'pass the parcel.'

Sat Dec 15, 2007 13:53

It seems that Mary Hanafin is blaming the EU Water Framework Directive too.

"Ms Hanafin confirmed that attempts by her department to secure a waiver for schools under the 1999 EU Water Framework Directive had failed."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1213/politics.html

Surely all this bluster is totally avoiding the point and avoiding responsibility. Who afterall, will be collecting and keeping the money squeezed out of our schools?

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Getting an education to be made thirsty work

Comments (15 of 15)