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

Over the years, I have had numerous occasions to speak on this and similar subjects in the House. The debate has always been the same. It is a question of whether there should be a charge for domestic water supplies. I believe there should be a recognition that an investment is needed in the development of the water supply system far beyond anything that has been envisaged over the past 30 years. I have put down numerous parliamentary questions to various Governments and Ministers over the years inquiring as to the proposals to provide the capital funding for the provision of adequate water supply, storage, treatment and transmission services. It is now recognised that the costs are laid out more or less as had been indicated in the past number of years at somewhere between €5 billion and €8 billion although it could be more if we were to have a reliable water supply similar to that which is available in other countries throughout the EU, which gets the blame for a lot of things.

I can remember when our water supply was comparable to most others in the western world. When one went on holidays to neighbouring countries one was always very careful about the water supply. That has changed because they have invested in their water supplies while we have not. It is one thing to curtail the quality of water, but it is quite another to curtail the quality of water by virtue of a lack of investment and to put lives at risk. We have had the situation in this country over the past number of years where rivers and lakes were polluted to an appalling extent while at the same time we had people saying we could certainly not have any charge for water. We cannot have any recognition that water requires an investment and we will do as we did before by going on and ignoring it. It does not work that way.

The demand from industry as well as from the domestic market are such that a failure to respond in a clear and emphatic way to the investment requirements of our water supply system will mean our industrial activities will be curtailed dramatically. It will not be possible to provide the water services required for an expanding economy, it will not be possible to expand the water services required for industry and it will not be possible to do it for an expanding population. Taking all of that into account, there is a need for massive investment along the lines already identified. Where that is going to be funded from is the next question. It will not be possible to fund capital expenditure of that magnitude from a domestic charge. Neither should it be expected to be hived over to the industrial sector because we either want jobs or we do not. If we want to kill off economic growth, the way to do it is to pile as much taxation on the job creating sector, on each person who is at work and on each employer, as possible. Eventually, we will not need a water supply because nobody will be at work. The position is clear.

We must recognise that a charge of some description is necessary to recognise the fact that water is not free. This question has come up again and again. We are told water is free because it comes down from the clouds and we should know all about that in this country as it comes down often enough. However, it has never been free. I remember when everybody went to the village square with a bucket and turned a handle. This is not so many years ago. In every square in every town, there was a pump and one got the water and brought it home. It was free in that no one can impede a person from gaining access to a water supply albeit one might have to go to the river with a bucket. However, time passed and we became more sophisticated. We provided a water supply to households. It then emerged that it would cost more money and we would have to do something about it. That was done too. Incidentally, I can remember a time when it was suggested at an election that we would not have to pay rates. There was a figure in the old rates system in respect of water. It was a nominal sum but it was there. Somebody decided to abolish rates. I will not say who it was. I cannot remember. My memory does not go back that far. It happened, however, and motor tax was abolished at the same time. The next thing that happened was that the country went bust and we had to reintroduce the whole thing all over again because there was no money in the kitty. People asked why we did not fill the potholes or provide water or do all the other things we were supposed to. The answer was that there was no money. It all had to be changed over again.

As such, when people say it is all provided for in general taxation, I note that it was not. I put down a parliamentary question to a previous Government asking to what extent the water costs had been transferred to general taxation and the answer was that they had not been. There one is. I am not saying the Minister of the time was telling a lie because I know that Ministers never do that. Certainly, the Minister at the time did not tell a lie. He was giving the information as he was asked as to whether it was provided for in general taxation and he said "No".

We are now back where we started asking how we fund and provide a service in the future or if we do it at all. If we fail to do it, we will have run away from our responsibilities and at some stage in the future, somebody will pass judgment on what we have been doing. The EU has been blamed. I was listening to Mr. Nigel Farage this morning. I do not like to speak about those who are outside the House who cannot speak for themselves, but he had a long list of proposals for the future admonishing the European Union, despite the fact that he has been a representative in the European Parliament for a number of years. One of them was tariffs on trade which is to say isolationism. That will be very interesting in the future because we will not be able to sell our goods and they will not be able to sell theirs. Everybody will put up the barriers and eventually things will come to a halt. That did not work in the past and we changed it. Other people have ideas about the system in eastern Europe 35 years ago or more where the theory was that everybody piled everything into the grand pool and everybody drew from it as time went by. Of course, that system went bust.

No one wants to accept responsibility for everyone else's problems. Things do not work that way.

Regardless of whether we like it, the question we must now ask is whether a nominal charge for a water supply is good. My view is that it is, as it reminds everyone that we should conserve. Conservation must be a major issue in the debate. Whatever the outcome, we must ask what is in the best interests of those people and industries that require an ongoing supply of water and what is the responsibility of publicly elected representatives whose job it is to provide others with that service. It will not be enough to fudge the issue and say that someone else will have the responsibility to do it, that they will not see it at all because it will be a general issue and that they will tax X, Y and Z because they will not accept responsibility. We must accept responsibility. I favour the concept of either a flat charge for a basic service or a waiver system, which we had previously and which would take families' circumstances into account. There is no objection to that.

The danger is that, once an issue becomes a political football, it will eventually be kicked to death and nothing will happen. Consider our current scenario. A candidate in a by-election decided that he would oppose water charges, full stop. Subsequently, a party in this House made the same decision, followed by another party. Not every party agreed at the same time. Unfortunately, democracy does not work like that. It would be nice if it did. If this becomes a political football, we could well find the same question still hanging over our heads in ten years' time as to how to fund a water supply that is sufficient to meet our domestic and industrial needs as well as increased expectations and demands.

At this point, we must ask ourselves what we are about. It is not just enough to blame the EU. The EU does not impose anything. It imposes what was agreed by the member states making their individual contributions. That is the sum total of what comes out of the EU by way of directive. There is no use in pretending that it is not. That is how it has always been. Something might have been agreed last year, five years ago or ten years ago.

In the final analysis, we must invest in the water supply. We have a duty to the Irish people to ensure that this is done. We must put in place a system that is reliable and will not break down every five minutes. We must renew the existing system. There is no use in people complaining about pipes being porous and leaking water all over the place while also complaining about the expenditure. We must do something about it. If we are to do that, we must start somewhere.

I wish to comment on general taxation. Many of us received e-mails and requests before the general election to the effect that motor tax should have been abolished or attached to general taxation or energy tax. That sounds good and some countries have done that. Maybe it suits them. Maybe they get or generate their energy in a different way. However, we tried that as well and it did not work. There was resistance when the alternative was introduced. As they say, that is politics.

Regarding investment in water, how to regulate it, how and whether to charge for it and whether to install meters, it has adequately been proven in my time in the House that meters are necessary. If there is any possibility of conserving water, that is how it will be done. People will automatically know that they must conserve because water will cost more past a certain level. It will be in everyone's interests to conserve. People will say that we should meter afterwards, but that is not how things work. We must put the infrastructure in place before we can develop it.

In so far as taxation is concerned, we must undoubtedly find a way to invest. The major capital investment that is required cannot come from domestic users. The amount would be too great. It could have been done 25 or 30 years ago, but it is too late now. In my dealings with domestic householders, they do not mind paying a fee as long as they get a good quality of supply. Deputies who represent parts of the country that depend on group schemes and so on will point out that the people there have been paying for their water supplies all of their lives. Some have been paying up to €2,000 or €3,000 per annum, which is a considerable amount.

One way or another, we need a greater recognition of the fact that we must find a way to cease polluting, improve the quality and reliability of supply, resolve the antipathy that has been generated towards a charge for water and find an acceptable mechanism.

See this speech in context