Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)

I now have about four minutes. I agree fundamentally with the principle that the polluter pays but I do not agree with the Government's interpretation of what a polluter is. If I give my daughter a glass of water I am not polluting. If I give my daughter a glass of water, leaving the tap on for a half hour beforehand, spilling it on the way to her and leaving her with a small bit of water in the bottom of the glass, I am a polluter. One should pay for what one abuses rather than what is used, especially if there is no choice. The Government's policy is to make it seem like it is trying to conserve water but as the other speakers have said, it is really just a neat packaging process so that it can sell one of our vital resources. The idea of metering is good but its intended usage is bad.

The Government has indicated there will be a certain reasonable allowance of water but consumers will have to pay when that has been used. That is fine as long as the allowance is reasonable but will there be a standing charge on top of that? It is never very clear what is happening with this Government but it seems there will be some kind of standing charge. I do not agree with that because many people will not be able to pay such a charge. If it is to be enforced, will some people not have any water if they cannot afford to pay the standing charge?

A survey was published by credit unions some weeks ago which was discussed in this Chamber and it indicated that people only have a minimal amount of disposable income once all their bills have been paid. In many cases this will mean people will not be able to afford water if it attracts a standing charge. We are to get a new national company that will not be privatised but what about the cogs in the company which are already being privatised?

See this speech in context