Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

It is strange that we are here on a quiet morning with very few people present for a debate on what was one of the most politically toxic issues in Ireland, the issue of the water charges. It must stick in the craw of the Taoiseach and a number of other people at the top of Fine Gael to have to refund people and effectively declare the end of water charges.

I will split my speech in two. We should deal with the scale of the victory and what has brought about this position. Three years ago the now Commissioner, Mr. Hogan, threatened that anyone who did not pay their water charges would have their water turned down to a trickle. The original proposal for water charges could have amounted to almost €900 for some families based on the original plan. People rebelled and revolted against that and the then Government was forced to make massive concessions.

Water charges came following a period of austerity when the establishment might have believed it would get away with it because there had not been that much opposition. Unlike in other countries, the trade union leadership did not put up much opposition to seven or eight years of austerity. The key factor in the water charges was that the people themselves had the power to withhold payment of the water charges. That was the decisive thing. People felt they had control over the issue and it was something on which they could make a stand. They did not have to wait for a signal from others. I pay tribute to the hundreds of thousands of people who took the decision to boycott - a word invented in this country - these charges as the most powerful way to get them abolished.

Then, of course, we had the mobilisations like we have not seen in at least a generation. The only comparable marches in history were the tax marches in 1979 and probably the anti-war marches in the early 2000s when huge numbers of people turned out on the streets. The scale of the marches against the water charges took the previous Government by surprise and shook it to its core.

The role of the Labour Party needs to be taken into account here. The Labour Party is obviously not in this Government, but shamefully it was central to the introduction of water charges in the previous one, having given a pre-election commitment that it would oppose water charges in the infamous "Tesco" advertisement that will be emblazoned on the tombstones of a number of Labour Party Ministers from that time. That kind of absolute lie aroused the anger of many people.

The legislation before us abolishes the water charges, as they were, and abolishes any arrears people may face. The late-payment fees made in an attempt to force people to pay are gone. We now have refunds for elderly and other people who were bullied into feeling they had to pay. Those of us in Solidarity and People Before Profit along with a handful of others were the first to raise this and argue that refunds should be paid. This represents a very important victory for the anti-water charges movement given that the then Government was refusing to refund.

A big element in this debate, as reflected in Deputy Cowen's comments, is why it happened. This is completely and utterly down to the mass revolt that took place in Irish society on the water charges, forcing the political parties to change. Deputy Cowen shamefully made a comment about street thuggery; it is called democracy. People have a right to come out on the streets and vent their opposition to or support for a political issue. There was resistance and opposition to the imposition of meters. Crucially, there was organised non-payment with 73% refusing to pay in full.

One of the consequences was the shift in positions by Fianna Fáil, which having agreed this in a memorandum of agreement with the troika, was then forced to put up posters, including in my constituency, calling for Irish Water to be abolished. Its election manifesto clearly called for the abolition of water charges. That is how political parties are forced to change their positions and other people should take note regarding other social and political issues in society as to how it is done.

We do not have full and unambiguous victory because the Government has chosen to leave the door open on excessive water usage. Some might argue it is to give itself cover regarding the EU. Others would argue that this is something that will happen, just not right now because it is still politically toxic. The idea that the Government will suddenly reintroduce water charges in a year or two and face the type of opposition it did in the past three years is untenable. However, it leaves the way open in the future for a government to attempt to change the definition of excessive water usage. I am particularly amazed at how this could affect four-person families. The latest census indicated that between 400,000 and 500,000 young people under 30 are living with their parents. The number of four-person households has increased due to the horrific housing crisis which this Government and its predecessor inflicted on people.

How could that work? It means that a four-person household does not get the same allowance per person as a single individual. How is that discrimination allowed to take place? It is a bit like the original water charges proposal. It presumes a household with more people uses less water. Are people sharing baths and showers or what? It is just ridiculous. That is something that can hit many families, particularly those with students who are not earning money and living at home right up to their 30s. We will certainly table amendments on that on the next Stage.

According to the expert commission, the average water usage here is 125 l per person per day, compared with 140 l per person per day in Britain.

There are certainly water meters in England and Wales. Private water companies run the whole network in England, but the idea that water meters lead to reduced usage has not been proved. There are many similarities with Britain. Therefore, the excessive usage of water is not widespread here. Making that argument again is an attempt to make out that ordinary households are the problem when we all know that leakages are the problem. The national rate for unaccounted for water of 40% is scandalous. In council areas where work has been done on this issue, particularly in some of the Dublin local authorities that have newer housing estates, the rate has been reduced to 26%. Obviously, we will never be able to reduce it to 0%. Where work has been done to reduce it, it works, yet the previous Government, in particular, rather than ensuring pipes were fixed, came out with a sledgehammer and tried to put the blame on ordinary householders. In the case of Fianna Fáil, we could have had it wiped out and eliminated completely. It could have made it an absolute political red line, but it chose not to do so. Therefore, it is simply not true to argue that the only people who will have to pay water charges will be water wasters.

I agree with Deputy Jan O'Sullivan that the timeframe for this measure is very suspicious. The fact that it will not take effect until July 2019 shows the reality. The Government is terrified of introducing anything to do with water charges before a general election. It has the figures for consumption and could introduce this measure tomorrow. However, it does not want to do so because, as was said, the issue of water charges is politically toxic and it will stay politically toxic for many years. Some 40% of homes have still not been metered. In those circumstances one has to question whether the Government will seriously go for this measure in another year and a half. If both it and Fianna Fáil do so, they should have no fear. They will be beaten again by a movement that has experienced victory on this issue and that movement can and will beat it again by using the same tactics and strategy it employed previously.

On some of the amendments the Solidarity group will bring forward on Committee Stage, we will propose that a new section be inserted into the Bill to abolish Irish Water. There is no need to have it as currently constituted. There could be a central organising entity, but certainly there is no need for company directors with bonuses, etc.

We will propose the insertion of a new subsection to provide for something like a swimming pool tax to be considered within six months of the Act coming into effect to levy a charge on the very few who use massive amounts of water. As there are no conservation measures proposed in the Bill, we will propose the undertaking of a public information campaign and an education programme in schools and third level institutions on the use and preservation of water resources. We will propose the deletion of any reference to excessive water usage which we believe potentially allows any future Government to reintroduce water charges.

We will propose the insertion of a provision to provide for investment in the pipes network and an upgrade of the network. We will also propose the establishment of a grant to allow domestic households to take part in water conservation measures such as the installation of dual flush systems, the conservation of water in containers, etc. when houses are being built.

We will propose that the membership of the water forum be completely transformed to allow for community and trade union representation and so on to enable people who use the water network to participate. We will also propose that its membership include a representative nominated by the trade union movement. This would ensure the protection of workers' rights and could act as a check and a brake on excessive bonus payments. The person concerned would be a representative of ordinary workers.

The Minister of State should listen, given that he refused to listen previously, to the arguments in favour of these amendments when they come up for consideration. We know that on previous occasions when water Bills were introduced, they were shoved through the Dáil. I remember being here and they led to massive problems and massive opposition. The Minister of State should take on board the amendments, wave the white flag on the issue of water charges, put it behind him, move on and let the people move on also.

See this speech in context