Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am happy to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill. We need to address a number of issues. There is a need for a water board, water services, backup services and the charges that go with that. We need to measure that against two things. The Bill comes at a time when the people of the country have been through a very traumatic experience. That applies to everybody, in all walks of life, including those who are wealthy and those who are not so wealthy, and families.

Whether people would be asked to pay for water supplies was always going to be a serious issue. I can understand that it is an emotive subject. We had these arguments in my constituency in the 1980s. We should examine the issue against the backdrop of what would happen if nothing were done. If nothing were done we would not have an adequate water supply available to everyone on a national basis, something to which the people are entitled, unless some structure were put in place to co-ordinate the efforts of those providing the service.

A number of issues come to mind. Reference was made by my colleague Deputy Fitzmaurice to the fact that the directors of services in the various local authorities should be brought together. That is what is happening. There is a transfer of local authority staff to Irish Water, because they are the people with direct, local knowledge who can make it work. That does not take away from the fact that there is still resistance to the principle, which we have to measure against the theory that water should be free and is a human right. Of course it is a human right and it is free, but it has to be collected. That is the way it has always been. There was a pump in the centre of the square in every town and village in the country and people collected water in buckets. It was free, and so it should be. The principle of access to water must always be sacrosanct and has long since been established; about that there should be no doubt. The next issue is whether we expect the people who will be given the responsibility of taking water, putting it underground in pipes, bringing it into purification plants, carrying out all necessary work and delivering it to the people to do so for free. A basic argument is that we pay for it already in our taxes, but that is not true. If we want an illustration of that, let us go back a few years to a time I can well remember, though other Members will not because they were not born. In 1977 the then Opposition proposed to abolish rates and said that everything that was charged for would be free. It said there was no need for a charge because things would be paid for through an extra penny or two in taxation. That was the theory, but it was wrong. I am not making a political point; this is historical fact. The same people said there should be no car tax because it was a deterrent to people going to work. After two and a half years the country went bust, the IMF was knocking on the door and suddenly fear spread throughout the land. It was recognised that it was not such a great idea. It sounded good at the time and was emotive, and drove people to do things they would not ordinarily have done unless they voted the way certain people wanted them to vote. It was a disaster. Motor tax had to be reintroduced and water charges were introduced.

I can well understand the reason for resistance and concern, because people are not so much afraid as angry. We hear a lot about anger, and I warn everybody in the House to be wary of it. Whenever expressions of anger are set in motion and managed in the public arena, it can be very dangerous for society. When the economy went bust some years ago, people were fearful of the consequences and what the future held. There was a fear of the unknown. We did not come out of the situation laughing; we just about survived. The consequences affected every household in the country, including the wealthy and the not so wealthy. There are reports on a daily basis stating that the poor have suffered. Of course they have. Could things have been any other way? The answer was to burn the bondholders and say we did not need to pay for anything. I will deal with that point for once and for all. It would have been a good idea in meeting the political objectives of many people, but there would have been consequences, which have already been felt in a number of other countries throughout the globe that did just that. If we think we have suffered badly as a result of the economic downturn, let us consider the how widespread the consequences would have been if we had taken a different route.

I did not like the route the country had to take, but we chose it. The previous and incoming Governments were criticised for allegedly following the same path. Nobody on the other side of the House explained what the consequences would be for every man, woman and child in the country if the Government had decided to burn the bondholders. Smoke from the funeral pyre would have been the only exhilarating thing, because the rest would have been serious retribution. I defy anybody to tell me that would not have happened. It is as simple as examining the average industrial wage in other European countries. When we ask ourselves what would have happened if we had taken the self-destruct route and led the people in that direction, I can say we would have suffered twice the amount we have and the consequences would have been severe.

I realised at a very early stage of my time in the House that water services in this country were inadequate, unreliable and insufficient to meet current and future demand, and that there was a need for a programme to make sure investment was made. The obvious thing to do would be to try to use existing services through local authorities, but that did not work. It is comparable to the situation with roads. Local authorities were in full control of all national, primary and other roads before a decision was made to form the National Roads Authority as a means of co-ordinating investment, focusing on the needs that existed and bringing investment to a head at an early stage. This policy was proven right, and it is a good example.

There are those who say the reason we decided to establish a different body was that it was to be privatised. I have disagreed with the concept of privatisation. Certain utility services should always be in public hands, and that is provided for in the Bill and will be provided for in future legislation. The Bill incorporates the concept that there will be no privatisation unless and until a plebiscite is held, and that cannot be changed. I do not know how often one can emphasise that.

There are those who say the Bill could be abolished in a few minutes; it cannot. It would be in violation of the Constitution. It is a promise made which is instilled in the Bill and it cannot be changed. There is no point in pretending it can, or saying there is a secret ruse to defraud everybody.

We need comparisons with the European Union. Across the Union countries must pay for various services - roads, water and so on. I am glad the cost to individual households for water has been modified to the extent it has, because I have always felt that in the current economic climate it is necessary to refine the payments to such an extent as to make it possible for people to pay them.

Some speakers have spoken about having a debate with the people. I see nothing wrong with this and I believe we should always debate the issues with the people, particularly increases in charges or taxation are proposed. This debate should be conducted in an even-handed way that takes full account of the views of both sides. We should not have one side shouting the other down, threatening the other or pretending reality does not exist. We must have a debate in which both views are put on the table so we can debate the issues in and even and open fashion and reach a conclusion.

I absolutely condemn the antics whereby Members elected to the House decide, in pursuit of their political objectives, to imprison or intimidate people, including Ministers. I refer in particular to the situation with the Tánaiste some time ago. That was a disgrace. It is a sad reflection on a democracy and on a freedom-loving people that some in our society believe an expression of their freedom is the imprisonment of someone else. They should spell this out for us at an early date, so that everybody knows this, including the people they hope may vote for them or for anybody else. We must be very wary of moving towards that attitude, because it could have disastrous consequences. We were very lucky it did not cause more disastrous consequences than it did on the occasion mentioned.

In regard to the intimidation of employees of Irish Water, some of these people are my constituents. It is one of the lowest tricks in the book to surround and intimidate people who are doing a job or doing their day's work. They are entitled to do their work without being threatened or impeded from doing it. These people are working for themselves and their families. Some of these workers are the only person in their household with an income. People must show due regard to the job they have to do and the difficult circumstances in which they do it. We must be careful not to encourage others to intimidate them or to create a situation in which they are in fear for themselves or their families.

See this speech in context