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

Like other Members, I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak about this legislation. There are several principles involved. First, there is the need to establish some culture which recognises that at all levels of society in which we incur debt, we must do so in the knowledge that somehow, somewhere or sometime it may be necessary to repay it. While it is all very fine for politicians and political wannabes to go forward for election, claiming they are opposed to this imposition, it should not be done. In my early days in politics the main Opposition party, Fianna Fáil, launched such a proposal in an election campaign in which it called for the abolishment of rates which included water charges. It is interesting that rates were abolished on the basis that we were already paying for them in our taxes. I often wondered about this. Later in my parliamentary career I tabled a parliamentary question, asking the Minister to indicate the precise amount in taxes levied against the consumer in various local charges and whether it included water or refuse collection services. I received a reply from the Minister from the same party which had proposed the abolition of rates in the first place that there was no specific allocation in respect of water charges, refuse charges, electricity charges or any other utility charge, most of which services were provided by the State or semi-State agencies at the time.

During elections some politicians and parties claim that if one votes for them, people will not have to pay for X, Y or Z. There will always be massive support for a political party or candidate who seeks election on that basis. Everyone is in favour of not having to pay a debt of any description. I would love if that were possible in the case of all debt because I hate paying for anything. However, I am somehow morally bound or in some way expected to pay. Some will argue politicians are okay because we have plenty of money. I do not accept that old argument. Everyone has a proportion of his or her disposable income that is deemed to be available to him or her to live on in the first instance and to pay basic utility payments, on the other hand. That is why we have a social welfaren system. I agree entirely that social welfare payments are meant to be an integral part of the system to enable those people who are, unfortunately, dependent on that income to discharge their household and other debts in so far as they can. It is not and was never going to be easy and it has not been for anybody in this country in the past seven or eight years, but neither has it been easy for many across Europe.

When I see people pointing to the situation in Greece, telling the public that we should the support Greek system and civil disobedience to bring everything to a halt to prove that the Greek system is right, they are wrong. What they need to do in those circumstances is go to Greece to find out what it is like and what has happened there in the past five years. At the same time, they need to recognise that they might have to put their hands in their pockets to pay for other countries across Europe which might not wish to take full responsibility for their outgoings.

It did not surprise me that the main Opposition party, in its opening statement this morning, stated, in the first instance, that it was opposed to this legislation. The Bill does not involve the imposition of a tax or liability; it is merely a provision to try to ensure we recognise the importance of trying to meet our commitments in so far as we can. I agree that this should be done with compassion. I am one of the most forthright Members in urging the application of compassion in all such circumstances. I say this because, like everybody else in the House in the past seven or eight years, I have dealt with the most shocking cases of disadvantaged people who find themselves very heavily challenged in the society in which we live. We must recognise their circumstances and what worries them most in these challenging times. We must be open-minded and recognise that everything is not always easy for everybody else. It is easy to make sweeping statements on one side or the other of an argument.

The purpose of the Bill encompasses creditors. There are those who say that while they bought a car or a service worth a couple of hundred euro from a creditor, they are not going to pay for it, although they believe they should. This argument is self-serving, but I do not believe sending people to prison is appropriate, as it causes really serious problems. It has happened several times that women were committed to prison for failing to pay a television licence fee. That is absolutely ridiculous. In one case I dealt with the children of a woman had to be taken into care while she was in prison serving a two-week sentence. That is absolutely outrageous.

I compliment the Minister on introducing the Bill. It is not to be used as a lethal weapon but as a means of alleviating the pressure on the borrower or debtor in particular circumstances. Properly handled, it will work well and I hope it will.

Incidentally, I have made reference in passing to the small business sector, shopkeepers and service providers who may be self-employed. I ask the Government to bear in mind the activities of the Irish Credit Bureau which nowadays controls many people's lives, particularly those who fell into financial difficulties in recent years. Such persons are automatically banned from conducting any business, obtaining any credit or loan and from working their way out of the system for five years flat. That is not acceptable and is not the function of the bureau. If we are to have a caring society, this issue needs to be addressed. We need to have a system whereby, after one year, any impediment that the bureau has created for a household, sole trader or self-employed individual would be revised as a matter of urgency. I have monitored the progress of the bureau during the years and noted that it does not at all reassure me as time passes. Ironically, it is now in the business of adjudicating on who should be given a local authority loan to buy a house. That is an amazing performance and is totally beyond its remit in that it has nothing to do with it whatsoever. I would like the Minister to bear this in mind in so far as it applies to her Department or others. It should be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

It has become very popular for wannabe politicians to campaign against services provided by local authorities. I refer to hospitals and local authorities, in particular. Several people have said local authorities should provide a wide range of services. I agree. It would be much more democratic to use the local authorities which are much better places in which to offer a personal service and adjudicate on the merits of particular cases. What has happened is that politicians, in order to be elected, decided to mount campaigns, collectively and individually, with the result that local authorities could no longer collect what was due to them. The first thing to go, of course, was the water service. The refuse collection services are another case in point. In my local authority area the only people who were left with the local authority were those who were entitled to a waiver of refuse service charges. It costs €4 million per year just for the privilege of dealing with this system. How cynical can we become as a society? It has to be clear to everybody that that kind of thing could not go on and that the local authority was actually subsidising the private sector, which is now collecting refuse. Nobody believed it was wrong; everybody said it was really outrageous when there was complete disengagement from the service. However, that is what happens and what will happen to other services. There are those who believe it is legitimate to campaign for the abolition of services knowing that somebody has to pay for their provision and meet associated costs. The only thing they can say is that somebody should pay for it. If it comes to that, somebody else should pay for everything. I am sure I would like somebody else to pay all of my debts if that were possible, but I have not yet noted great enthusiasm to do this on the part of anybody else. Some smart guy might correctly say the public pays my salary, but he should note that while we are all paid in the public service and appreciate this, we also offer a service and do our best not to mislead the people.

I heard it mentioned earlier in the campaign this morning that the Government had no mandate. This is a very serious charge. It does have a mandate. In a democracy the government receives a mandate from the people that carries from one election to the next. It should be clearly recognised that this mandate is absolute and that the government can and must govern. Its job is to govern in keeping with what has been established as being fair and equitable. Failure to do so would be an abdication of responsibility. The Government could very easily decide to lift its stakes, walk out and state we are all opposed to everything. Governments in some countries have done this, but it does not work as it brings society to a halt and everything breaks down. Nothing would work and no one would be paid. That is what has happened in some other jurisdictions.

There is a tendency to say only certain people in society have had to carry the burden of the difficulties of recent years. Sadly, we have heard this many times in the House. It is no harm to reiterate that everybody has paid proportionately. It is true that all penalties or burdens hit the poorer in society more particularly, but everybody has had to pay. Everybody has had to stump up and make a proportionate contribution. I hope that, as time passes, we will see benefits accruing to the people, be they rich, poor or otherwise. I hope some of the lessons now evident in the public arena have been learned by us. I also hope we have learned adequately and that, as a result, we can have a better society. I further hope society will become more responsible and that the politicians elected by it will be more responsible. It is very easy for those who sit across the floor of the House to say the Government has not delivered on its promises. What promises? The Government was handed a country that was debt ridden and had been beaten to the ground with debt. In asking it to deliver where were we going and what was to happen? Did we expect that the desired outcome would be achieved painlessly or with ease? Did we expect it to be achieved through the abolition of various taxes that had been imposed on us? The old adage is then heard that what was done was to appease the Germans. We had better get it right. If in this country we believe there is somebody who will ensure, in return for recognising how wonderful and great our society is, we will receive a payment every year without having to pay it back, we are codding ourselves.

Furthermore, if more people throughout the globe picked up that agenda, which they might, they would find that the whole of society became poorer.

A number of speakers have mentioned campaigns of disobedience and tried to legitimise their observance. When I was younger than I am now, I was involved in campaigns of disobedience and ended up imprisoned for it.

See this speech in context