Dáil debates

Tuesday, 7 November 2017

Water Services Bill 2017: Report Stage

 

7:55 pm

Photo of Joan CollinsJoan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

This is a water services Bill and it should be dealing with conservation and the leakages we know are happening from pipes. A finding of the Joint Committee on Future Funding of Domestic Water Services was astounding. Most people thought Ireland would have a higher rate of water consumption than other countries but, surprisingly, average domestic consumption in this country is 123 litres per capitacompared to 140 litres per capitain the UK. In another way, that is not surprising as Irish people are aware of water usage. The problem is the 48% of water that is leaking into the ground through faulty pipes.

Amendment No. 16 attempts to introduce a conservation measure. When I was a member of Dublin City Council, Mr. Dermot Lacey of the Labour Party went on about all the water wasters with their swimming pools. The simple way to deal with that is to introduce VAT on the installation of swimming pools and then to have an annual tax on the amount of water they use. A Trojan Horse was used to justify the introduction of water charges to every single domestic household in the country.

It is a shame that so many amendments relating to conservation have been ruled out of order. Conservation is a very important part of a water services Bill. The retrofitting of housing stock is also important. I would love to get a grant, not a €100 grant as was given out as part of the previous Bill, but a real grant to be able to retrofit my home in order to assist me with the conservation of water. It is also regrettable that the Bill is silent on the need for new houses to incorporate conservation measures. I am very surprised and angry considering the fact that all of the debate in the committee was about conservation and the future funding of water services. Slovenia introduced a change to its constitution last year to maintain water in public ownership not because there was any urgency to do that as there was no debate about the privatisation of water or the introduction of charges for water, but because they felt it was the proper thing to do to protect future generations against privatisation and the fat cats who are waiting to buy up water all over the world.

We know this is the new blue oil. This is where capitalism is trying to grab water and make major profits. We have seen in Britain how it has been used in this way.

These amendments should be taken on board and the Minister should reconsider the amendments ruled out of order. Perhaps the Minister could examine the related issues and bring them to the relevant committee in the context of how we introduce legislation to deal with these issues.

The question of putting a figure on a family was raised. Originally, the so-called excessive water charge was supposed to be a penalty or a fine. Now, it is being brought in as a payment. This is the fundamental change that people on the street have been expressing concern about. They know this is a Trojan Horse for the future to try to bring the multiplier down after five years. Under another amendment, the Minister can review it and bring it down.

We should applaud our citizenry for practically the lowest consumption of water in Europe. We should applaud the people for playing such a key role. We should invest in fixing the leaks. The leakages are not in households, but in the public space. That is where we should invest our money to deal with these issues.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.