Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom aitheantas a thabhairt go bhfuil difríocht mhór ann idir téarmaí an Bhille atá os ár gcomhair amach inniu agus na téarmaí a bhí sa Bhille an bhliain seo caite. There are major differences between what is before us now and what was before us this time last year. Regardless of what one thinks of water charges, that has to be acknowledged. The Government had to listen, such was the extent of the protest and the difficulties that were caused. The major lesson learned was how not to do something.

Leaving aside the principle held by many people who believe in the right to free water, Irish Water has been a debacle. What was most disturbing was the presumption that what was previously proposed would be acceptable. There is no realisation of the extent of the effect of the austerity measures on ordinary people, and the disconnect between this ivory tower in here and the real world outside has been highlighted. Bhí sé dochreidte nach raibh níos mó eolais, tuisceana agus léargais ag an Rialtas seo.

Last week I introduced a Private Members' motion on the importance of a human-rights-based analysis of budgets and the need for social impact analysis and gender-proofing. If that principle was applied to any proposed legislation or policy, the mistakes made with Irish Water would not have been made. That type of analysis and approach would have shown that after the universal social charge, which was supposed to be temporary but now appears to be a permanent fixture, property tax and the numerous increases in household bills, not to mention difficulties with mortgages and rents, a future tax, especially on a service like water, which resonates in a very personal and emotional way with people, would have been a major problem for many people and a bridge too far.

If a social impact analysis had been done, the Government would have realised that not enough credit is available to many families to cover the proposed charge. We could have learned other lessons from tribunals and past Governments, and this Government would have realised the distaste that citizens have for wasting public funds, the allocation of bonuses and the consultation and solicitors' fees associated with the foundation of Irish water. We know it was an unacceptable farce. Irish Water was doomed to fail before even one meter was installed.

If a proper social impact analysis had been done and advice had been taken from other institutions, things would have been different. Research done by Coyne Research showed that two-thirds of Irish households were borrowing to pay existing bills. How could they cope with another bill? It also found that approximately 50% of households were turning to credit cards and overdrafts in 2013, an increase from 43% in 2012. Its findings were published when the water Bill was initially introduced.

It is unbelievable that the Government could get things so wrong that it would think another charge could be imposed. A social impact analysis would have shown that a policy of rushing through the water Bill, and setting up the quango that is Irish Water and the bonus culture, was not part of the new politics we were promised.

The Minister set out the problems with water and sewerage in his speech yesterday. There are boil-water notices, leaks, poor and useless pipes and insufficient supply. Not all of our beautiful beaches have blue flags, but they should have. There are also environmental aspects due to climate change. We know the aging water infrastructure is in dire need of investment and improvement, which makes it all the more important to get it right. I am reminded of the Irish proverb: "Tosnú maith leath na hoibre." It was a dire and disastrous start, rather than a good one. It is difficult to see how the Government can recover from this.

We all realise that the protests next Wednesday are about more than water. Water is the uniting factor, but it will be a reflection of the real public sentiment, plain and simple, that people cannot take any more. What is being presented in the Bill is much less than what was originally proposed, but there is a principle involved - that is, enough is enough. I acknowledge that over 900,000 people have registered, but there are others who will not be satisfied until there are no charges.

We know there are signs of recovery, but people are protesting. They are saying that all of us, rather than particular groups in society, want to share in the recovery and feel its benefits. We have seen a widening in inequality. We know the statistics show that the wealthiest people have seen their wealth increase. The normal middle earner cannot afford the charge.

I want to take issue with the manner in which the Government calculated rates which did not take the bigger picture into account. Research done by Professor Tom McDonnell of NERI presented a different model for charges which would have addressed inequality, something the Government failed to do. In his analysis, he proposed a system whereby those who could afford to pay would do so, and lower earners would have been exempt, which is equality, plain and simple. The Government applied a different system, developed by highly paid consultants and external agents, which had no recognition of people in other income brackets.

Let us consider the positive aspects of the Bill. Steps have been taken to keep Irish Water in public ownership, a point to which I will return. Other positive elements include the water conservation grant, the establishment of the public water forum, the abolition of the PPS number requirement, the customer dispute resolution process and the potential to allay fears about water being cut off for non-payers, as happened in Detroit and Bolivia. I cannot understand how anybody could have dreamed up a system whereby people's water supply would be cut off if they did not pay. It was an appalling proposal.

There is a very genuine fear that what the Government has said about ownership is not to be trusted and that at some point Irish Water could be sold off, like other assets and resources.

In his speech the Minister said that a resolution from both Houses of the Oireachtas would be required, but if such a resolution were going through the House today, the Government has the majority, so it would be passed. I am interested in that aspect of the issue.

I have been looking back at our history leading up to the 1937 Constitution. From 1916, we have had the idea that sovereignty of the Irish people could not exist unless the people owned the land and all the resources within it. For example, the 1916 Proclamation states: "We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible." The idea that was at the forefront of the democratic programme passed by the first Dáil was that sovereignty extends not only to the men and women but to all material possessions, the nation's soil and its resources. At the heart of the 1922 Constitution was the idea that the sovereignty of the people extends over the natural resources of Saorstát Éireann. Therefore, I believe the 1937 Constitution got it wrong, and we need to go back to the Constitution of 1922. We must restore the fundamental right of Irish people to our natural resources and impose a duty of trusteeship on the State. The referendum being proposed in this regard does not go far enough.

The community and voluntary pillar made a submission and presented their observations. They made a point about the rush to establish Irish Water and called for a formal period of transition and the monitoring and review of progress. They proposed that data be collected and that this be followed by reflection and analysis. There should also be continuous social impact analysis. The Constitutional Convention voted in January to recommend to the Oireachtas the holding of a referendum on the strengthening of economic, social and cultural rights. This is the type of referendum we need.

Personally, I do not object to metering, but I want the meter to be of practical use. It should be a meter that will help identify leaks, promote conservation and help me measure the amount of water I use. The cart came before the horse in this case and it was appalling to ask people to pay high amounts, as was proposed this time last year, for a broken system. Councils have vast experience and knowledge, but no account seems to have been taken of that. More account needs to be taken of the types of group scheme that are working in rural Ireland. We should have had more analysis of that system and how and why it works, and we should have applied that to the new proposals. There is not enough done in the area of rainwater harvesting, but it is not too late for that.

This issue has been disastrous for the Garda Síochána and public feeling towards gardaí, because they have put in situations they should not have put in on the issue of meters. There is an issue of public trust now and we have yet to see whether the Government can come back from the disastrous mistakes that have been made. I heard on radio this morning that 48% of people agree with water charges, but a large number remain not in agreement. Wednesday may tell a different tale.

See this speech in context