ESRI economist John Fitzgerald’s claims – that more than 2,000 local authority water staff were surplus to requirements – proved to be completely wrong last week. The economist claimed on Monday that just 1,700 staff were needed to deliver Irish water services, but that over 4,300 would remain in place until 2026. He claimed this would cost taxpayers up to €2 billion.

But by Tuesday the professor had rowed back after IMPACT and other unions questioned his staffing figures. His argument about savings then fell apart.

An IMPACT briefing, produced immediately on the day (27^th January) the claims hit the headlines, undermined Fitzgerald’s case. It was circulated among trade union communications and economics staff via the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

When he was finally quizzed on the figures, on RTÉ’s Primetime programme that evening, the professor answered that he was “not sticking to the figure” on which the entire story was based.

As IMPACT explained in its blog on Tuesday (28^th January) morning, it was impossible to demonstrate that “between €1 billion and €2 billion” in savings had been foregone once the 1,700 figure was scotched. But it wasn’t the only figure that was wrong. IMPACT pointed out to journalists that the 4,300 figure for current staffing was a 2010 figure. Staffing levels were actually significantly lower following local authority staff reductions.

It was also wrong to assume that staffing levels would be static over the coming years. In fact they will fall substantially because more than half the water workforce is aged over 50. The many journalists and politicians who commented on Fitzgerald’s claims also seemed unaware that staffing costs make up less than 15% of the total cost of delivering water services.

Fitzgerald’s claim of up to €2 billion savings foregone also assumed that alternatives to the agreed arrangements – that most staff will remain in local authorities and provide services to Irish Water under ‘service level agreements’ – were cost free. In fact, any alternative scenario would incur substantial costs.

IMPACT head of communications Bernard Harbor said it was irresponsible to make unsubstantiated accusations about waste on this scale. “The ESRI is an influential body and it should check its facts before seeking the limelight on an issue like this,” he said.