Water Services Bill 2014

This is not the first time I have spoken on water charges but I welcome the opportunity to reiterate my support for the principle of water charges.  I also welcome the fact that this Bill is receiving two full days of debate in the House because, as I admitted the last time I spoke, it was a mistake to apply the guillotine when the legislation went through last year.  I do not know why this happened but it was a brief debate that did not give sufficient time for a full critique of the Bill and an examination of the details.  We needed an opportunity to tease out the problems that have emerged in recent months.

 We are where we are and I support the provisions of this Bill, limited as they are.  The Bill deals primarily with the introduction of a fixed water charge, the application of a cap and the introduction of a conservation grant.  In terms of conservation, a charge per litre of water consumed is preferable to a capped charge.  I always have been conscious of water consumption in my home and anyone who has been a member of a local authority will be aware of the costs of capturing, storing, treating and distributing water, along with the cost of safely disposing of wastewater.  Water does not arrive in our taps without cost.  Many people, including Opposition Deputies, have pointed out that water was never free and we always paid for it through taxation.  However, the point is water was more expensive using that system because no attempt was made to conserve it.  

 We all know about the level of waste in our water system due to leaking pipes and under-investment but the truth is we all wasted water in our households by watering gardens, washing cars and so on.  When I learned water was to be metered I became more conscious of conservation but as soon as I heard a cap was to be applied I took my foot off the throttle and became far less vigilant.  Many people have said the same to me because it is human nature to react this way.  As the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, said, if electricity were free we would never turn off the lights.  My point is, the sooner we switch back to metered water the better and cheaper it will be for all of us.  A crucial part of water conservation is knowing how much water is used and when, where and how we use it.  The fixed charge will give respite for a couple of years to allow assessment of water usage and it will give people the opportunity to use the conservation grant.  We can change our habits to ensure we use less water and reduce the cost to the country as a whole.

 I think the level of charge is reasonable, though some say it is too low.  I believe it is reasonable in light of all the other costs people have faced in recent years.  It will cover the production cost of water.

It will also facilitate the leveraging of the vital investment we need in the water network.

 Some Deputies on the other side of the House and others outside it have threatened to bring down the Government on this issue.  However, a charge set at €1.15 per week is perfectly reasonable.  Let us put it in context.  The total that will be paid in water charges is a little more than half of what is being paid in property tax and, incredibly, a little more than one third of what is taken in by the Government through the private pension levy.  The talk about bringing down the Government and going out onto the streets is an over-reaction to what is a reasonable charge for an important product.

 What is more puzzling is that those who want to bring down the Government have stated they do not want to be in government.  This begs the question of what they do want.  They should be careful about what they seek.  It is unwise to bring people out onto the streets and encourage the language that has been used such as a “sucker punch” for the Government, as well as barricading the Taoiseach’s car and imprisoning the Tánaiste.  No matter how peaceful one intends a protest to be, one cannot control crowds on the street because of their dynamic.  One should be aware of this and wary of what one is trying to achieve in that way.

 An important aspect of the debate concerns the enforcement of charges.  A successful tax has several features.  It should be fair; there should be adequate resources for what is needed to collect and fund it; it should be simple to understand and transparent, and it should be easy to administer.  Being easy to administer means that it should be easy to collect, as well as easy to pay.  They are equally important, but for a tax to be easy to collect, there must be penalties.  This legislation includes a penalty.  If a person does not pay or make some arrangement to pay within 12 months, the charge will go up and will continue to go up during the years.  We can impose all of the penalties in the world, but they are meaningless if we cannot enforce them.  It is easy enough to enforce a payment, albeit a deferred payment, when we are dealing with an owner-occupier by placing a lean on the property.  That is straightforward.  However, we cannot and should not allow a situation where businesses and property owners and occupiers are the only ones who pay for water simply because they are easy prey.  I understand that in the new year there will be further legislation or regulations providing for the enforcement mechanisms required, which I will welcome, as should everyone.  I hope the €100 conservation grant will only be given to those who actually pay the water charge.  People should have to do more than register; they should actually pay.  We owe it to those who will pay, those tax-compliant citizens who will pay quietly every tax and charge, to ensure they will not be left to carry the can by paying not only for their water but also for those who will not pay.  Those who have no intention of paying have no incentive to conserve water.  I assure the House that nothing is more likely to get people out onto the streets than an upright charge-paying citizen seeing his or her neighbour not pay.

 This legislation will prohibit the turning off of water for non-payers, which had been envisaged originally.  That is the right thing to do, but no one should assume this means that if a person chooses not to pay, someone else will pay for him or her.  That much should be made perfectly clear from the outset.  No threat should dissuade any of us that it is absolutely right that everyone should pay, rather than only the few.  I look forward to the announcement of effective enforcement provisions in the new year.  Meanwhile, I am happy to support the legislation.