Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

One reason we just had the argument about the amendments that had been ruled out of order is the deficiencies in the Bill. I wish to put my comments on the three amendments into context.

A number of us in the Chamber spent a very long period as members of the special water committee. We did so to go through a range of issues concerning the future funding of domestic water services. Some of us did not support the final report, but we did support many of its individual recommendations. What we were led to believe by the Government at the time was that legislation would be brought before the House to deal with the broad range of issues recommended to be addressed in the report. We were told legislation would be published in June. In fact, the former Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, told us on two occasions when he was responsible that promised legislation would be published in June. It was then to be delayed until July because of the Fine Gael leadership election and it was further delayed for reasons of which none of us was made aware until the very end of September - 26 September. It was introduced in the Dáil in October during budget week. What is most frustrating for most of us, however, is that many of the issues that attracted unanimous support in the water committee were not addressed in the legislation. Some colleagues have mentioned the referendum. The issue on which the largest number of submissions was received by the expert group on the future of water services - the single biggest issue of public concern, apart from water charges - was not included in the legislation and we are still disputing it.

The Oireachtas committee report referred to funding certainty. It also referred to ensuring water services would be subject to funding certainty beyond year to year budgets. That is not included in the legislation. We talked about equality for group water schemes and ensuring that, if people in the public system would not have to pay an annual standing charge, those involved in group water schemes would not have to either. It was stated there would be changes to the grant assistance available for maintaining these schemes, but that is not included in the legislation either.

There was quite extensive discussion and there are very good recommendations in the report on conservation measures, including a commitment to review planning legislation to ensure our desired approach would be taken in all new Bills, and on trying to introduce some new schemes for the retrofitting of existing buildings to conserve more water, but none of this is included in the legislation. Therefore, crucial measures that had cross-party support, in addition to public backing, are not included in the Bill. That is why there is such frustration among Deputies present.

With regard to the Bill and the amendment, all that is dealt with is the charge for so-called excessive use and refunds. We still have not got to the bottom of some of the crucial questions on how the system will operate. I agree absolutely with Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett that one of the main concerns which pertains to the amendment is that while the deal between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael may see a charge applied only to a small number of households at the outset, perhaps 8%, the infrastructure for metered domestic water charges remains in place and can, at the decision of a future Government or the current one and its confidence and supply agreement partner, be extended to more households. That is our big fear.

Many of us now understand the way in which the so-called excess charge will be calculated, but there could be circumstances in which a household of five would end up using proportionately less water in excess of the threshold than a household of one but have to pay. There are still anomalies in how the charge is being calculated that simply do not make a lot of sense if, as the Government claims, the intention is to limit excessive use. It seems, in fact, that the provision in question is an incentive for one and two-person households to use water excessively, while punishing families of five or six, thus preventing them from using an appropriate amount of water according to their needs. This, of course, begs the question as to whether it has anything whatsoever to do with excessive use.

It is still not clear whether it is a volumetric charge. Perhaps the Minister might clarify the position. Will there be a charge for every cubic metre of water used above the threshold? If so, what will happen to the 46% of households with no meter? These are questions that were not answered on Committee Stage and we still do not have answers today.

On the question of refunds, Deputy Barry Cowen and the Taoiseach were communicating furtively with newspapers last week on who was responsible for the delays. The very large number of Sinn Féin voters who had read the Daily Mailwere banging down my door demanding to know why I was delaying the payment of refunds. The truth is that the people responsible for the delay with this legislation are the members of the Government. It was in June that the Bill was meant to be before the House and then it was meant to be before it in July. It was only brought forward in the week before the budget. Apparently, Deputy Barry Cowen said I had tabled too many amendments. I acknowledge that he has a difficulty with scrutinising legislation, particularly Bills such as this, which include such significant U-turns by his party. Our job, however, is to scrutinise legislation introduced by the Government in order that it will not contain mistakes or have unintended consequences. Not only did I not submit too many amendments but we got ours through in a full committee meeting. It was good to see Deputy Barry Cowen present for a full committee meeting for a change; he does not do so often when we are dealing with detailed amendments. Nobody should have to justify doing his job and scrutinising legislation that the two parties on either side of us have concocted and that will end up hurting households. Certainly, if anybody wants to know why his or her payment will not be made by Christmas, he or she should note that it has nothing to do with Sinn Féin or the other Opposition Right2Water Deputies. Rather, responsibility rests with the two parties which are responsible for this legislation.

My concern is that I still do not understand how the charge will reduce so-called excessive use and how it will be applied fairly and ensure any level of conservation. Despite the answers we have received so far from the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, who at least is willing to talk about the Bill, unlike Deputy Barry Cowen, I still do not understand how it will do what is being said.

See this speech in context