Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

This, in relation to an important reform, is a classic case of facing an open goal but managing to kick the ball wide. For many years, I have felt that the habit of sending people to prison for unpaid civil debts is mad. Many of those who wound up in prison in these situations were people who were generally not very well up on the law. On the other hand, it was also a fact that if people were owed civil debts, the procedure for trying to get one's money was totally convoluted and in favour of those who knew how to operate the system. I know that, having run a co-operative business in respect of which there were a small number of people who owed it money and could have paid. Eventually, one had to seek a committal order. The work done by the Law Reform Commission is, therefore, very welcome and it would have been a very welcome change to introduce this law under normal circumstances. I notice that the Government has been no more successful than we were in getting an even spread of legislation across the session. Notwithstanding Haddington Road and other agreements, the system seems incapable of providing legislation until we get into the last four weeks of every Dáil term. As such, while we need a change in the law, we suddenly find at the end of the term that we are faced with a rush of legislation being put through by way of bad procedure.

Yesterday, we debated a Bill but it was not possible to make any changes to very substantial amendments on Report Stage that were not discussed on Committee Stage. That is what this House is meant to be about. Some of the Minister's colleagues have been good at operating this House as it is meant to in the taking of amendments to Bills. Today we have reforming legislation that should be good news but it is being hidden away on a Friday because the real purpose of the Bill is being changed from reform to dealing primarily with the Irish Water debacle.

Returning to the beginning of the problem, water charges were introduced to the country and, in the 1990s, the majority of people accepted the principle of such charges. However, a Government took fright and decided it would be a good idea to abolish those charges and did so. There is an argument in favour of water charges in that it is ridiculous that the system means taxation must pay for water sooner or later. We are paying for people who are wasting massive amounts of water. It was decided or agreed to introduce water charges but what the Government has done is very different from what we proposed in the four-year plan. It has introduced water and sewerage charges, or so-called water in and water out charges. That had never been intended in the four-year plan, which stipulated only water charges. In the old iteration in the 1990s, the charges were purely for water going in rather than water going out.

Irish Water was set up at a massive cost and with much bureaucracy. People are afraid they are getting a super-quango, and that has done much damage to the credibility of the Government and undermined the confidence of how we do our business. Instead of recognising that this company was set up in a shambles with enormous overhead costs, the Government is continuing on regardless. Many people have decided not to register as a form of protest, and they will not pay their bills. Yesterday, when I spoke during the debate on the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, I argued that many poorer people are becoming the ham in a sandwich between the belligerent attitude of the Government in carrying on regardless and the bad advice being given by people who say that people should not register, claim the €100 or pay the bill. The people who do not watch the small print or who have other things in their lives than watching the niceties of the procedures we follow in this House have been led to believe that if they do not register, nothing will happen to them.

It will not be the few politicians and other people who know what is going - they are the ones leading protests - who will be big losers in this. It will be the very ordinary, decent people, who have been led to believe that the best way of objecting to the Government's actions is refusing to register or pay water charges, who will suffer. My understanding is that if people have not registered by 30 June, they will not be eligible for the water conservation grant. Allowing that the grant lasts for two years, some of the most marginalised people living in the most marginalised communities will have already lost €200, thinking they are making some great protest.

I understand there is a provision in the Bill that these orders can be given on a debt of €500 or more, which is convenient. The charge for water over a year is €264, so we can multiply this by two, add penalties and, hey presto, we are over the €500. That is very convenient for the Government. It can sit on its hands for two years, send out bills and chalk up liabilities. It will ensure it is the other side of an election before the solicitors' letters start rolling out. The people who have been telling others not to pay may be right in that they probably have no problem going into a court but my experience in my constituency office over many years is that when a solicitor's letter rolls in, many ordinary people of very limited means take fright. They have never been in a court in their life and do not want to have to go to court. They would not be confident going to court and defending their position. There would be examination of means. In such cases, many people would pay as they would see it as the lesser of two evils. As I stated yesterday, the Government will hit from one side with legislation and the people who are telling others not to pay the bills will not be writing cheques for the €200 lost in losing the water conservation grant, the penalties for non-payment of bills or any other cost associated with defending a case.

Looking at the profile of a large number of people who have not paid their bills, one would find that many are in local authority housing estates and have very limited means. This would allow the taking of a few euro from their social welfare if these people get more than the basic rate. I know there is a clause that forbids taking more than a certain level but that always existed when a court order was made with respect to payment. In those cases, people of very limited means will suffer most under this legislation. We should stand back from this.

Can we not build up a consensus in society on water charges? Alternatively, could we have options on how we as citizens pay for water? One thing that is absolutely true is sooner or later we the citizens will pay for all the water services.

It is also a truism that if tax on the wealthy were increased, a Government might or might not decide the elimination of water charges was the best way to spend the money. If the Government found €2 billion extra tomorrow I have no doubt there would be a great debate in the public mind and among the Cabinet as to whether it should be spent on giving the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, the extra billion he needs for the health service or on the extra special needs assistants needed. I am sure the Minister would say she could improve conditions in the prisons or that she needs more gardaí. I am sure the Minister for Social Protection would say she would like to roll back the severe and unfair cuts imposed on lone parents or on women who took time off from their careers to care for either children or elderly people and who have been totally unfairly penalised by the Government with regard to their pensions. There would be no problem spending the €2 billion ten times over. Irrespective of who was sitting at the Cabinet table, if they had the €2 billion on the desk which priority would they put first? We should have this debate before we debate the Bill.

The adage that one can rule only with the consent of the ruled is true. I notice a massive difference between rural and urban areas with regard to this matter. Having water is incredibly important and many rural areas have experienced operating with wells and incredibly expensive private systems which make the water charges look small. Therefore, rural areas generally take the view much more, although Deputy Pringle's constituency tends to be slightly different, that if one uses water one should pay for it and if one does not one should not pay for it. We must also admit that, if car taxes were paying for water until now, for the first time rural areas are paying the same taxes as everybody. We were all paying car tax but most of us at best were getting only half the service and many people in rural Ireland were getting no service because they were on private waste water and water systems, which was unfair. This has been overlooked in the argument that we have paid for it. Yes, we have paid for it, if one wants to make that argument, but we got nothing as a result.

One of the ways the Government could have tried to get buy-in was to say charging for water and collecting the charge would be a matter for each local authority to decide on, so long as the service was financed. We need finance to run a water system. Irish Water is not very efficient at present, and its establishment was certainly incredibly inefficient as it involved taking on all of the existing staff, adding many new staff and massive consultancy fees. Even if Irish Water were efficient it costs money to run. Sewerage systems are incredibly expensive to run. The money has to come from somewhere.

Rather than going around with a big hammer at the late end of the term to add to all of the woes and the divisions in society the Government has heaped upon the people, what we need to do is stand back. This will not come into effect for two years because the bills will not have amounted to much. Rather than rushing through the legislation, starting on a Friday, I suggest we all stand back and find out what people in the communities believe are the best taxation systems. Let us find out what they believe is the priority for collecting and disbursing money, and whether it is to reduce taxes or to provide more services. Let us be patient and build a consensus.

The one thing the Government does not seem to want to do is have a mature debate on these issues. These are difficult issues and there are no easy answers. There is no free money. Those who say we should spend and spend must face up to the fact that all money spent comes from either borrowing, which inevitably must be repaid with interest, or from taxation. There is no other source of money for our services. This is part of the big debate society needs to have. It would be much better for the Government to engage in this debate rather than bludgeoning legislation through the House, believing if it does so everything will be right on the day and there will not be very vulnerable casualties along the way. I believe in the case of this Bill there will be very vulnerable casualties along the way if the Minister implements this as she proposes to do.

See this speech in context